Quote Archive | America and Christendom

(Updated December 12, 2024)

This Quote Archive is on America and Christendom. Each Archive is a treasury of original source quotes on various topics relevant to the Catholic Faith, and addressed in Becoming Catholic articles. They are intended to help people explore the “gold, silver, and precious gems” that have been mined and sifted from the sources of the Great Tradition by Eternal Christendom as a labor of love for our readers, and all seekers of Truth. They are periodically updated as more research is completed.

“America and Christendom” refers to the relationship between the principles of the American Founding and the civilization of Christendom, including the topic of Freemasonry. It provides numerous quotations from the Founders, the thinkers that exercised a pronounced influence on their thought, as well as near-contemporaries whose articulation of the American Founding can be considered authoritative. In particular, these quotes shed light on their view of the Two Powers (Temporal and Spiritual), their relations throughout history, their supposed ideal relationship in the present, as well as the relationship between faith and reason, and what can be known by the human person.

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592)

Complete Essays: An Apology for Raymond Sebond

SOURCE: Complete Essays: An Apology for Raymond Sebond (Book 2, Ch. 12); Michel de Montaigne, M.A. Screech, trans., The Complete Essays (New York: Penguin Books, 2003).

(Book 2, Ch. 12) (pg. 490)

[T]hat was when the novelties of Luther were beginning to be esteemed, in many places shaking our old religion. He [Montaigne’s father] was well advised, clearly deducing that this new disease would soon degenerate into loathsome atheism. The mass of ordinary people lack the faculty of judging things as they are, letting themselves be carried away by chance appearances. Once you have put into their hands the foolhardiness of despising and criticizing opinions which they used to hold in the highest awe (such as those which concern their salvation), and once you have thrown into the balance of doubt and uncertainty any articles of their religion, they soon cast all the rest of their beliefs into similar uncertainty. They had no more authority for them, no more foundation, than for those who have just undermined; and so, as though it were the yoke of a tyrant, they shake off all those other concepts which had been impressed upon them by the authority of Law and the awesomeness of ancient custom.

Nam cupide conculcatur nimis ante metutum [“That which once was feared too greatly is now avidly trampled underfoot”; Lucretius, V, 1140, alluding to regicide].

They then take it upon themselves to accept nothing on which they have not pronounced their own approval, subjecting it to their individual assent.

John Adams (1735-1826)

John Adams, Fragmentary Notes for “A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law” (May-August 1765)

Liberty, that has been compelled to skulk about in Corners of the Earth, and been everlastingly persecuted by the great, the rich, the noble, the Reverend, the proud, the Lasey, the Ambitious, avaricious, and Revengeful, who have from the beginning constituted almost all the sons of Adam. Liberty, that complication of real Honor, Piety, Virtue Dignity, and Glory, which has never been enjoyed, in its full Perfection, by more than ten or twelve Millions of Men at any Time, since the Creation, will reign in America, over hundreds and Thousands of Millions at a Time.

In future ages, when the Bones and sinews that now direct this Pen, shall become indistinguishable from the rest of Mother Earth, and perhaps incorporate into some Plant or other Animal, Man shall make his true Figure, upon this Continent, He shall make that great and happy Figure among Intellectual and sensible reigns that his great Creator intended he should in other Countries before his Ruin was effected by the Lust of Tyrants.

When science, Literature, Civility, Politeness, Humanity, [every?] Christian grace and Virtue shall be well understood by all Men, when one shall not be able to deceive a Thousand and two because 10,000 of their Souls and Bodies then will be the Aera of human Happiness.

Knowledge monopolized, or in the Possession of a few, is a Curse to Mankind. We should dispense it among all Ranks. We should educate our children. Equality should be preserved in knowledge.

Property monopolized or in the Possession of a few is a Curse to Mankind. We should preserve not an Absolute Equality—this is unnecessary, but preserve all from extreme Poverty, and all others from extravagant Riches.

John Adams, To the Inhabitants of the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay (March 13, 1775)

But there was another mist cast before the eyes of the English nation from another source. The pope claimed a sovereign propriety in, as well as authority over the whole earth. As head of the Christian church, and vicar of God, he claimed this authority over all Christendom; and in the same character he claimed a right to all the countries and possessions of heathens and infidels: a right divine to exterminate and destroy them at his discretion, in order to propagate the catholic faith. When king Henry the eighth, and his parliament, threw off the authority of the pope, stripped his holiness of his supremacy, and invested it in himself by an act of parliament, he and his courtiers seemed to think that all the right of the holy see, were transferred to him: and it was a union of these two the most impertinent and fantastical ideas that ever got into an human pericranium, viz. that as feudal sovereign and supreme head of the church together, a king of England had a right to all the land their subjects could find, not possessed by any Christian state or prince, though possessed by heathen or infidel nations, which seems to have deluded the nation about the time of the settlement of the colonies. But none of these ideas gave or inferred any right in parliament, over the new countries conquered or discovered; and therefore denying that the colonies are a part of the realm, and that as such they are subject to parliament, by no means deprives us of English liberties. Nor does it “build up absolute monarchy in the colonies.” For admitting these notions of the common, canon and feudal law to have been in full force, and that the king was absolute in America, when it was settled; yet he had a right to enter into a contract with his subjects, and stipulate that they should enjoy all the rights and liberties of Englishmen forever, in consideration of their undertaking to clear the wilderness, propagate Christianity, pay a fifth part of oar, &c. Such a contract as this has been made with all the colonies, royal governments as well as charter ones. For the commissions to the governors contain the plan of the government, and the contract between the king and subject, in the former, as much as the charters in the latter.

John Adams, To Benjamin Kent (June 22, 1776)

I am for the most liberal Toleration of all Denominations of Religionists but I hope that Congress will never meddle with Religion, further than to Say their own Prayers, and to fast and give Thanks, once a Year. Let every Colony, have its own Religion, without Molestation.

John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (Vol. 1, Preliminary Observations)

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses…

Neither the people, nor their conventions, committees, or sub-committees, considered legislation in any other light than as ordinary arts and sciences, only more important. Called without expectation, and compelled without previous inclination, though undoubtedly at the best period of time, both for England and America, suddenly to erect new systems of laws for their future government, they adopted the method of a wise architect, in erecting a new palace for the residence of his sovereign.

They determined to consult Vitruvius, Palladio, and all other writers of reputation in the art; to examine the most celebrated buildings, whether they remain entire or in ruins; to compare these with the principles of writers; and to inquire how far both the theories and models were founded in nature, or created by fancy; and when this was done, so far as their circumstances would allow, to adopt the advantages and reject the inconveniences of all.

Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other one of holy water. The people were universally too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honor to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind. The experiment is made, and has completely succeeded; it can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates and obedience of citizens can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion, without the monkery of priests, or the knavery of politicians. As the writer was personally acquainted with most of the gentlemen in each of the states, who had the principal share in the first draughts, the following work was really written to lay before the public a specimen of that kind of reading and reasoning which produced the American constitutions.

John Adams, Dialogues of the Dead (c. April 22, 1790)

Charlemagne. Very true. I cannot recollect my own Grandeur my Vast Views, my unbounded designs, and my wonderful success, without blushing. The detestable Maxim, Mr. Otis, which you imputed to one of your Contemporaries, Populus Vult decipi, decipiatur, was my Maxim and I owed to it most of my Greatness. [Pope] Leo [III] gave me the Title of Caesar and Augustus, and Magnus: and instituted that Superstitious Farce of Consecration, which cheated all Europe for many hundred Years. I, in my turn, transferred to the Pope, the Authority which the Roman senate and People had anciently exercised of electing and confirming the Emperors. This infamous Bargain, as contemptible as the Artifices of two Jockeys, established the temporal and spiritual Monarchies of Europe for many hundreds of Years—But Providence reserved for You the honor of beginning a system of Policy, which has already almost and will infallibly e’er long totally overturn the whole Conspiracy of Charlemagne and Leo.

John Adams, To Francois Adriaan Van der Kemp (June 5, 1812)

Why do you Single out poor Calvin and Servetus? Luther would not tolerate Zwinglius, because he did not believe in Consubstantiation. Peter Postellus was condemned for being a Zwinglian. Anabaptist also were put to death. Zwinglius also condemned an Anabaptist to be drowned. With the Qui iterum mergit mergitur. Even Melanchthon approved the death of Servetus. Why then do you Single out Calvin? All the Protestant Leaders were intolerant; and all the Protestant Dissenters too, when they had power, even the Settlers of Virginia and New England. If the Arminians are an exception, they never had Power. The French Atheists Deists Philosophers in the late Revolution were as intolerant as Christian Priests. What Shall We Say? Human Nature is intolerant when ever it has power. Trust Power then without a counterprize to no Man to no sect to no Party. Amen and Amen.

John Adams, To Francois Adriaan Van der Kemp (September 1, 1812)

Recur, then to our Principle “Trust no Man or Assembly of Men; no Sect of Religion, Philosophy or Politicks with unlimited Power. No Priest or Priests, No Merchant or Merchants; No Lawyer, or Lawyers, no Physician or Physicians; No Mobs or Mob; No! and No Farmer or Farmers: No Majority or Majorities. Trust not poor, weak, ignorant credulous Selfish human Nature with absolute Power.”

John Adams, To John Giles (September 14, 1812)

I can find no legitimate Authority in Christianity, either by precept or Example for the Priests to tell their People from the Pulpit, that their Rulers are Atheists, Deists, Infidels Sold to France, Slaves of Napoleon, corrupt, hypocritical, tyrannical &c especially if this is Said without Proof, and more especially if it be Said contrary to truth. And it is really afflicting, to hear quoted as Authorities for Such misrepresentations, Breisted, and Walsh or the Boston Gazette or Repertory, or their libelous Writers of Pamphlets. Having myself Suffered under Such Sacerdotal Billingsgate as well as gazette and Pamphlet Billingsgate during my own Administration I am the [best] qualified to detest it, [under this] [. . .]rison.

You must allow me a little personal [Self] gratification in Saying, that I had the honor of preaching [to the] Archbishop of Canterbury in his Palace or Castle at Lam[beth] more than five and twenty years ago, your doctrine of the universal right of Conscience, and all that you have Said concerning Toleration and Intoleration. In maintaining this Doctrine I wish you Success.

John Adams, To Francois Adriaan Van der Kemp (January 23, 1813)

I am “a Christian,” and “a Theologian”, but not a Churchman; not an Ecclesiastic; not a Priest, Parson or Clergyman. You Surely can See these distinctions, more accurate that I can.

Our eternal Salvation from, unquenchable and never consuming Fire, does not depend on our belief of the Authenticity of “Homer, Xenophon and Livy.” Why have the most important Parts of Livy, Tacitus, Aristotle &c been destroyed? Why have the most important Work of Cicero, his Discourses on Government, been annihilated? &c &c &c without end? I can conceive of no plausible Answer to these questions, but this a conspiracy between Roman Catholic Divines and Roman Imperial Politicians, have burned everything in Pagan and Christian Antiquity which Stood in the Way of their Views of Spiritual and temporal Despotism. Why did Gelasius burn fifty Gospels at once?…

I assert the divine right and the sacred duty, of private individual Judgment, and deny all human Authority in matters of Faith…

Now, I know of no divine Authority, for Lords Parson, Lords Brethren, Lords Councils, Lords Synods, Lords Associations, Lords Consociations or Lords General Assemblies, any more than in Lords Bishops, Lords Cardinals or Lords Kings, or Gods Popes, to deliver a man over to Satan to be buffetted, than there is in a A Quincy, A Braintree or a Randolph Town Meeting. I can find no Sufficient foundation for the distinction between The Ecclesia which is called Church, and The Ecclesia which is called a Congregation…Can You?…

I find in the Old Testament and especially in the New, internal Evidence of a Philosophy, a Morality and a Polity, which my head and heart Embraces, for its equity Humanity and Benevolence. This is my Religion.

John Adams, To Thomas Jefferson (July 9, 1813)

Why are the Histories of all Nations, more ancient than the Christian Æra, lost? Who destroyed the Alexandrian Library? I believe that Christian Priests, Jewish Rabbis Grecian Sages and Roman Emperors had as great a hand in it as Turks and Mohammedans.

Democrats, Rebels and Jacobins, when they possessed a momentary Power, have Shewn a disposition, both to destroy and to forge Records, as vandalical, as Priests and Despots. Such has been and Such is the World We live in.

John Adams, To John Taylor (December 14, 1814)

Have you considered that system of holy Lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for fifteen hundred Years; and which Chateaubriand appears at this day to believe as sincerely as St. Austin [Augustine?] did? Upon this system depends The Royalty, Loyalty, and Allegiance of Europe. The Phial of holy Oil, with which the Kings of France and England are anointed, is one of the most Splendid and important Events in all the Legends. Do you think that Mr. Adams’s System arrests our Efforts and Appalls our hopes in pursuit of political good”? His Maxim is, Study Government as you do Astronomy by Facts Observations and Experiments; not by the Dogmas of lying Priests or knavish Politicians…

Among the Miracles, pronounced by these Able Men to be true, there are probably millions which you and I should believe, no more than We do those related by Paulinus, Athanasius, Basil, Jerome, or Chrysostom, as of their own knowledge.

Now let Us see, how this generous Effort in favor of Truth, was received and rewarded. Libels in abundance were printed against it. The Authors were cited before the Inquisition in Spain, and the Pope in Italy, as Authors of gross Errors. The Inquisition pronounced its Anathema in 1695. All Europe was in anxious Suspense. The Pope himself was embarrassed by the interminable controversies excited, and without deciding anything, had no Way to escape but by prohibiting all Writings on the subject.

And What were the Errors? They were only doubts.

1. Is it certain that the Face of J.C. [Jesus Christ] was painted on the Handkerchief of Saint Veronica?

2. Is it certain that the Church at Antwerp is in possession of the genuine Prepuce of the Savior of the World? Which has wrought so many Miracles?

3 Had the Carmelites, The Prophet Elias for their Founder.

These questions sat Europe in a flame and might have roasted Papebrock at an Auto de Fee, had he been in Spain.

Such dangers as these might “Arrest Efforts and appall hopes” of political Good: but “Mr. Adams’s system cannot. That gaping timid Animal Man, dares not read or think. The Prejudices Passions habits Associations and Interests of his fellow Creatures surround him, on every side; and if his Reading or his thoughts interfere with any of these, he dares not acknowledge it. If he is hardly enough to venture even a hint, Persecution in Some form or other is his certain portion. Party Spirit, L’Esprit du Corps, Sects, Factions, which threaten our existence in America at this moment both in Church and State, have ‘arrested all Efforts’ and ‘appalled all hopes of political good.’ Have the Protestants accomplished a thorough Reformation? Is there a Nation in Europe whose Government is purified from Monkish Knavery? Even in England, is not the Phyal of holy Oil still shewn to Travelers? How long will it be, before the head of the Prince Regent or the head of his Daughter will be anointed with this Oil and the right of impressing Seamon from American ships, deduced from it. One Sheet a time, is Surely enough, unless it were better from

John Adams.

John Adams, To John Taylor (December 17, 1814)

What can I Say of The Democracy of France? I dare not write what I think and what I know. Were Brissot, Condorcet, Danton Robespiere and Monsiegnieur Equality less ambitious than Cæsar, Alexander or Napoleon? Were Dumourier, Pichegru, Moreau, less Generals, less Conquerors, or in the End less fortunate than he was.? What was the Ambition of this Democracy.? Nothing less than to propagate itself, it is Principles its System through the World, to decapitate all the Kings, destroy all the Nobles and Priests in Europe? And who were the Instruments employed by the Mountebanks behind the Scene, to accomplish these Sublime purposes? The Fisherwomen, the Badauds, the Stage Players, the Atheists, the Deists, the Scribblers for any cause at three Livres a day, the Jews, and, Oh! that I could erase from my memory! the learned Divines profound students in the Prophecies. Real Philosophers, and Sincere Christians in amazing Numbers over all Europe and America were hurried away by the torrent of contagious Enthusiasm. Democracy is chargeable with all the blood that has been spilled for five and twenty years. Napoleon and all his Generals were but Creatures of Democracy as really as Rienzi Theodore, Mazzianello, Jack Cade or Wat Tyler. This democratical, Hurricane, Inundation, Earthquake, Pestilence call it which you will, at last aroused and alarmed all the World and produced a Combination unexampled, to prevent its further Progress.

John Adams, To John Taylor (December 22, 1814)

In my Apology, if you like that Word better than “Defense” I passed over England for more reasons than One. I very well knew, that there had been no nation that had produced so many materials for the illustration of my System and confirmation of my Principles as that in which I wrote. There was anciently no People, but Serfs; no House of Commons. The Struggles between Kings, Barons and Priests from Thomas a Kempis to Cardinal Woolsey and from him to Archbishop Laud and from him to King William would have been instructive enough. And it would not have been difficult to have Shewn that “the Wars, Rebellions, Persecutions and Oppressions of the English Form,” arose, (the Frenzy of Superstition apart) from the Want of that Limitation of Power in the King the Lords, the Commons and the Judges, and of the balances between them for which I contended. I had nothing to do with the Ecclesiastical Establishment in England. My Observations related exclusively to the civil and political Arrangement of Powers. These Powers were never accurately defined and consequently balanced, till the Revolution, nor the Judges completely independent till the present Reign…

A large proportion of “the Wars, Rebellions, Persecutions and Oppressions” in England have arisen from Ecclesiastical Artifices and the intoxication of religious Enthusiasm. Are you Sure that any form of Government can at all times Secure the People from Fanaticism? Although this Country has done much are you confident that our moral civil or political Liberties are perfectly Safe, on this quarter? Is a Democracy less liable to this Evil than a mixed Government?

John Adams, To John Taylor (January 24, 1815)

Turn our Thoughts, in the next place, to the Characters of Learned Men. The Priesthood, have in all ancient Nations, nearly monopolized Learning. Read over again all the Accounts We have of Hindoos Chaldeans, Persians Greeks, Romans, Celts, Teutons, We Shall find that Priests had all the Knowledge, and really governed all Mankind. Examine Mahometanism Trace Christianity from its first Promulgation, Knowledge has been almost exclusively confined to the Clergy. And even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting Sect, who would tolerate, A free Inquiry? The blackest Billingate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured countenanced propagated and applauded: But touch a solemn Truth in collision with a dogma of a Sect, though capable of the clearest proof; and you will Soon find you have disturbed a Nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands and fly into your face and Eyes.

John Adams, To William Cranch (March 3, 1815)

Our Fisheries have not been abandoned. They cannot be abandoned. They Shall not be abandoned. We hold them by no Grant Gift, Bargain or Sale or last Will and Testament nor by hereditary descent from Great Britain. We hold them, in Truth, not as Kings and Priests claim their Rights and Power by hypocrisy and Craft, but from God and our own Swords.

John Adams, To James Lloyd (March 27, 1815)

The People of South America, are the most ignorant the most bigoted the most Superstitious of all the Roman Catholics in Christendom. They believe Salvation to be confined to themselves and the Spaniards in Europe They can Scarcely allow it to The Pope and his Italians, certainly not to the French; and as to England, English America and all other Protestant Nations, nothing could be expected or hoped for any of them but a fearful Looking for of eternal and unquenchable flames of Fire and Brimstone. No Catholics on Earth were So abjectly devoted to their Priests as blindly Superstitious as themselves and these Priests had the Powers and Apparatus of the Inquisition to Seize every Suspected Person and Suppress every rising Motion.

John Adams, To James Lloyd (March 30, 1815)

What could I think of Revolutions and Constitutions in South America? A People more ignorant, more bigoted, more Superstitious, more implicitly credulous in the Sanctity of Royalty more blindly devoted to their Priests, in more awful terror of the Inquisition than any People of Europe, even in Spain, Portugal or the Austrian Netherlands, and infinitely more than in Rome itself the immediate Residence of the Head of holy Church.

John Adams, To Benjamin Waterhouse (May 30, 1815)

Upon clementary Principles Napoleon is the most legitimate Sovereign in Europe, having been twice elected by a great Nation. If the August conclave at Vienna can decree a King for France why may they not destine the Duke of York, or Mrs Clark to be King of our beloved united States? Why may they not lay all Nations and Kingdoms under Interdict? Popes have Sett Precedents enough.

John Adams, To John Quincy Adams (June 4, 1815)

The three Volumes of the Marquis D’Argens have seized my Attention more forcibly than Don Quixotte ever did. I have read them all. I could not keep my Eyes off them. They have concurred with Dr Middletons Works, with Voltaire’s Universal History, as it is called, and with every thing else that I have ever read, to convince me that the Philosophers and Priests of all Ages Nations and Countries, have been the greatest Lyars that ever existed. This Marquis himself is the grossest and most impudent Liar I ever read: Yet the most candid, open, learned and ingenious Liar of them all. Voltaire is a fool to him. How is it possible that the Ecclesia Phylosophorum, Should have neglected these Works? and that you Should have had so much trouble to find them?…

Why Should not the Ecumenical Counsel at Vienna interdict any and all the Sovereigns of Europe as his Holiness and his Counsels did heretofore?

Oh that Mankind could ever be persuaded to attend to Principles and Precedents?

John Adams, To Thomas Jefferson, with Postscript by Abigail Adams (June 20, 1815)

The question before the human race is, Whether the God of nature Shall govern the World by his own laws, or Whether Priests and Kings Shall rule it by fictitious Miracles.? Or, in other Words, whether Authority is originally in the People? or whether it has descended for 1800 Years in a Succession of Popes and Bishops, or brought down from Heaven by the holy Ghost in the form of a Dove, in a Phial of holy Oil?

Who shall take the side of God and Nature? Brackmans,? Mandarins? Druids? Or Tecumseh and his Brother the Prophet? or Shall We become Disciples of the Philosophers? And who are the Philosophers? Frederick? Voltaire? Rousseau? Buffon? Diderot? or Condorcet? These Philosophers have Shewn them Selves as incapable of governing man kind, as the Bourbons1 or the Guelphs.

John Adams, To Francois Adriaan van der Kemp (November 10, 1815)

What would Saint Justin Say to a modern Priest who would burn an honest Man for eating a Pigs foot or for doubting the Transportation of the Church of Loretto? Or who would refuse to eat or drink with another because he could not believe 3 to be equal to one, and one to be equal to 3?

John Adams, To Thomas Jefferson (November 13, 1815)

Nevertheless, according to the few lights that remain to Us, We may Say that the Eighteenth Century, notwithstanding all its Errors and Vices has been, of all that are past, the most honorable to human Nature. Knowledge and Virtues were increased and diffused, Arts, Sciences useful to Men, ameliorating their condition, were improved, more than in any former equal Period.

But, what are We to Say now? Is the Nineteenth Century to be a Contrast to the Eighteenth? Is it to extinguish all the Lights of its Predecessor? Are the Sorbonne, the Inquisition, the Index expurgatorius, and the Knights Errant of St Ignatius Loyola to be revived and restored to all their Salutary Powers of Supporting and propagating the mild Spirit of Christianity? The Proceedings of the Allies and their Congress at Vienna, the Accounts from Spain France &c the Chateaubriands and the Genlis, indicate which Way the Wind blows. The Priests are at their Old Work again. The Protestants are denounced and another St Bartholomew’s day, threatened.

John Adams, To Jedidiah Morse (December 2, 1815)

The Nature and extent of the Authority of Parliament, over the colonies, was discussed everywhere, till it was discovered, that it had none at all; a conclusion, still more forcibly impressed upon the people by the Canada bill, by which the Roman Catholic religion, & Popish Bishops, were established in that province by authority of a British Parliament. The people said, if Parliament can do this in Canada, they can do the same in all the other Colonies; & they began to see, & freely say, that Parliament had no authority over them, in any case whatsoever.

John Adams, To Thomas Jefferson, with a Postscript by Abigail Adams (February 2, 1816)

To trace the Commencement of the Reformation I Suspect We must go farther back than Borgia, or even than Huss or Wickliff, and I want the Acta Sanctorum to assist me in this Research. That Stupendous Monument of human Hypocrisy and Fanaticism the Church of St. Peter at Rome, which was a Century and an Half in Building; excited the Ambition of Leo the tenth, who believed no more of the Christian Religion than Diderot, to finish it: And finding St. Peters Pence insufficient, he deluged all Europe with Indulgences for Sale, and excited Luther to controvert his Authority to grant them. Luther and his Associates and Followers, went less than half way in detecting the Corruptions of Christianity; but they acquired Reverence and Authority among their Followers almost as absolute as that of the Popes had been, To enter into details would be endless. But I agree with you, that the natural Effect of Science and Arts is to erect public opinion into a Censor, which must in Some degree be respected by all.

Your Question “How the Apostacy from National Rectitude can be Accounted for” is too deep and wide for my capacity to answer. I leave Fisher Ames to dogmatize up the Affairs of Europe and Mankind. I have done too much in this Way. A burned Child dreads the Fire. I can only say at present, that it Should Seem that human Reason and human Conscience, though I believe there are such things, are not a Match, for human Passions, human Imaginations and human Enthusiasm. You however I believe have hit one Mark, “The Fires the Governments of Europe felt kindling under their Seats”: and I will hazard a shot at another, The Priests of all Nations imagined they felt approaching Such Flames as they had So often kindled about the Bodies of honest Men. Priests and Politicians, never before, So Suddenly and So unanimously concurred in Reestablishing Darkness and Ignorance Superstition and Despotism.

…The Philosophers of the 18^th Century have acted on the Same Principle. “When it is to combat Evil, ’tis lawful to employ the Devil.” Bonus Populus vult decipi; decipiatur. They have employed the Same Falsehood the Same deceit, which Philosophers and Priests of all ages have employed for their own Selfish Purposes. We now know how their Efforts have Succeeded. The old Deceivers have triumphed over the New. Truth, must be more respected than it ever has been, before, any great Improvement can be expected in the Condition of Mankind. As Rochfaucault his “Maxims drew, from” history and from Practice, “I believe them true” From the whole Nature of Man, moral intellectual and physical he did not draw them.

John Adams, To John Quincy Adams (March 28, 1816)

We do not expect to be “Saved” or damned for Unitarianism, or any other Philosophical or metaphysical or Theological opinions; but by Sincerity Candor Charity Benevolence and Beneficence: or their Contraries.

You may cry, “Mercy” but to judge of your Athanasian Creed you must read the Acta Sanctorum of the Bollandists. You must write an honest ecclesiastical History. Voltaire or Gibbon ought to have written it; but they dared not.

What do you call “The Bible”? The Translation by King James the first? More than half a Catholic?

When you have read “Search” you must become yourself a Search, before you proclaim to the World; before you pledge yourself; before you Settle any opinion of the first Philosophy and the true Theology.

An incarnate God!!! An eternal, Self existent, omnipotent omnipresent omniscient Author of this Stupendous Universe, Suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul Starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has Stupefied the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all the Corruptions of Christianity.

I have in my Office two Volumes of Institutes of Cannon Law, which I purchased and read fifty Years ago in Part, i.e. in 1766. If you or my dear George was here I would Send for it and quote it. But now I must quote it from Memory. “Whoever is not within the Pale of the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church Proculdubio, etermæ damnationis fluctibus Obruetur. I was not Scared by this dreadful denunciation. I laughed at it as heartily as I did at the Remonstrance of the Catholic Bishops and Priests to the King of the Netherlands made this or last Year in which this Sacred Cannon Law was appealed to as infallible.

“The Bible a Rule of Faith”! What Bible? King James’s? The Hebrew? The Septuagint,? The Vulgate? The Bibles now translated or translating into Chinese, Indian, Negro and all the other Languages of Europe Asia and Africa? Which of the thirty thousand Variantia are the Rule of Faith?…

I believe you was in as little danger of Conversion to Transubstantiation as I was when a Jesuit was taking that Picture which has represented me like an Old Woman throughout the U.S. In a dark cold Closet in cold Weather, he was preaching to me on that Text “This is my Body,” all the time I was Sitting Speechless as a Statue.

John Adams, To Thomas Jefferson (May 3, 1816)

Bolingbroke Said “his Philosophy was not Sufficient to Support him in his last hours.” D’alembert Said “Happy are they who have Courage, but I have none.” Voltaire the greatest Genius of them all, behaved like the greatest Coward of them all; at his death as he had like the wisest fool of them all in his Lifetime. Hume awkwardly affects to Sport away all Sober thoughts. Who can answer for his last Feelings and Reflections? especially as the Priests are in possession of the Custom of making them the great Engines of their Craft. Procul este Prophani!

John Adams, To John Quincy Adams (May 10, 1816)

All Religions have Something good in them: but the Ambition and Avarice of Priests and Politicians have introduced into all of them, monstrous Corruptions and Abuses, and into none more cruel bloody and horrible than into the Christian…

…The Lord have mercy Upon Us and incline our hearts to keep the honest Law of Liberty, without Phrensy: and undefiled Religion without Sacerdotal despotism.

John Adams, To George Washington Adams (May 27, 1816)

What is the Sacerdotal Spirit? The Ecclesiastical Spirit? Is it not the Instruction of Mankind? Yet Priest and Ecclesiastics have conspired to deprive Mankind of the Means of Instruction.

Which have most honestly conformed to the Spirit of their Professions? Priests or Soldiers?

John Adams, To John Quincy Adams (June 16, 1816)

The human Mind cannot be much longer muffled as it has been by the old Artifices of Politicians or Priests the Worst of Politicians. What New Ones may be invented I know not. But I wish that Forbearance Endurance and Universal Charity may Supersede all Tricks and Crafts.

John Adams, To Thomas Jefferson (September 3, 1816)

I almost Shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal Example of the Abuses of Grief, which the History of Mankind has preserved. The Cross. Consider what Calamities that Engine of Grief has produced! With the rational Respect that is due to it, knavish Priests have added Prostitutions of it, that fill or might fill the blackest and bloodiest Pages of human History.

John Adams, To Francois Adriaan van der Kemp (October 23, 1816)

And that all the Popes Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests from St Peter down to Parson Thayer who lately died in Kentucky, were all Gods.

And that all the Emperors, and Kings who have been anointed with holy Oil, are or were Gods.

For God the Second Sent God the third into his Apostles and the 70: They Sent him in uninterrupted Succession down to all the Priests to this 23d. Oct. 16. And they Sent him into all the Monarchs, Emperors and Kings down to the late Congress of Their High Mightinesses at Vienna. How can Napoleon himself be excluded from this Mutitudinicity of Divinities? For He has been acknowledged by the Holy Ghost in the Pope.

If I understand the Doctrine, It is, that if God the first Second or third or all three together are united with or in a Man, the whole Animal becomes a God and his Mother is The Mother of God and his Grand Mother, The Grand Mother of God.

It grievs me: It Shocks me to write in this Style upon a Subject the most adorable that any finite Intelligence can contemplate or embrace: but [if] ever Mankind are to be superior to the Brutes, Sacerdotal Impostures must be exposed.

John Adams, To Henry Colman (October 28, 1816)

By the doctrine of Rome, and of England, the king eternal, immortal, & invisible, the only wise God that is the holy Ghost was communicated to his Apostles by the Son of God, or God the Son, & by them, transmitted down from St. Justin and Saint Papias through all the Catholic Priests, Jesuits & all, to Parson Thayer who lately died in Kentucky. however all the Emperors & Kings have been Hierophants, High Priests, Head of the Church, consecrated by Popes , anointed with holy oil, brought down from Heaven by the Holy Ghost in a phial, in the bill of a Dove.

Basanistes might prove all these to be Gods upon his principles. What a multitudinity!

We had better restore “the High places” and mount up like wild Goats to the summits of the hills, and the sharpest points of the highest rocks & there sacrifice, Bulls & Calves, Rams & Lambs Goats Dogs and Cats, to the Sun moon Planets, fixed stars, and all the wild beasts of the Zodiac all the “Host of heaven” all the milky way: and all the Nebulae of Herschel.

You and I, are enthusiasts; and I defy any human mind that thinks to be less. we ought then to be candid to all our fellows and neither betray or insult each others Rhapsodies.

John Adams, To Thomas Jefferson (November 4, 1816)

We have now, it Seems a National Bible Society to propagate King James’s Bible, through All Nations. Would it not be better, to apply these pious Subscriptions, to purify Christendom from the Corruptions of Christianity; than to propagate those Corruptions in Europe Asia, Africa and America!

John Adams, To Thomas Jefferson (April 19, 1817)

From the bottom of my Soul, I pity my Fellow Men. Fears and Terrors appear to have produced an universal Credulity. Fears of Calamities in Life and punishments after death, Seem to have possessed to Souls of all Men. But fear of Pain and death, here, do not Seem to have been So unconquerable as fear of what is to come hereafter. Priests, Hierophants, Popes, Despots Emperors, Kings, Princes Nobles, have been as credulous as Shoeblacks, Boots, and Kitchen Scullions. The former Seem to have believed in their divine Rights as Sincerely as the latter. Auto de fee’s in Spain and Portugal have been celebrated with as good Faith as Excommunications have been practiced in Connecticut or as Baptisms have been refused in Philadelphia,

How it is possible that Mankind Should Submit to be governed as they have been is to me an inscrutable Mystery. How they could bear to be taxed to build the Temple of Diana at Ephesus, the Pyramids of Egypt, Saint Peters at Rome, Notre Dame at Paris, St. Pauls in London, with a million Et ceteras; when my Navy Yards, and my quasi Army made Such a popular Clamor, I know not. Yet all my Peccadillos, never excited6 such a rage as the late Compensation Law!!!

I congratulate you, on the late Election in Connecticut. It is a kind of Epocha. Several causes have conspired. One which you would not Suspect. Some one, no doubt instigated by the Devil, has taken it into his head to print a new Edition of “The independent Whig” even in Connecticut, and has Scattered the Volumes through the State. These Volumes it is Said, have produced a Burst of Indignation against Priestcraft Bigotry and Intolerance, and in conjunction with other causes have produced the late Election.

John Adams, To Henry Colman (June 13, 1817)

And when you Shall have done all this You will find yourself, precisely where you are now, an Adorer of the Christian Religion in its Purity; mourning over the Knavery And Folly of your Species; and above all deploring the Corruptions and heathenish Superstitions and Idolatries introduced into the Religion of Jesus by his professed disciples, and “most holy Priests.”

John Adams, To William Tudor (September 18, 1818)

The English doctrine of Allegiance, is so mysterious, fabulous, & enigmatical, that it is difficult to decompose the Elements Of which it is compounded. The Priests under the Hebrew Economy, especially the Sovereign Pontiff were anointed with consecrated Oil, which was poured upon their heads in such profusion, that it ran down their beards, & they were thence called “The Lords Anointed” When Kings were permitted to be introduced, they were anointed in the same manner by the Sovereign Pontiff & they too were called “The Lords Anointed.” When the Pontiffs of Rome assumed the Customs, Pomps & ceremonies of the Jewish Priesthood, they assumed the power of consecrating Kings by the same ceremony of “Holy Oil.” The Pope, who as Vicar of God possessed the whole Globe of earth in supreme dominion & absolute property, possessed also the power of sending the Holy Ghost wherever he pleased. To France it pleased his Holiness to send him in a Phial of Oil to Rheims in the beak of a Dove. I have not heard that my friend Louis the 18th has yet been consecrated at Rheims, by the pouring on of this holy Oil, but his worthy elder brother Louis 16th was so consecrated at a vast expense of treasure & ridicule. How the holy bottle was conveyed to England is worth Enquiry. But there it is, and is used at every Coronation & is demurely, if not devoutly shewn to every traveler, who visits the Tower, these ideas were once, as firmly established in England, as in Rome; and no small quantity of the Relics of them remain to this day; Hence the doctrine of the divine right of Kings, & the duties in subjects of unlimited submission, passive obedience, and non resistance, on pain, on pain (oh! how can I write it) of Eternal damnation. these doctrines have been openly & boldly asserted, & defended, since my memory, in the town of Boston, & in the town of Quincy, by persons of no small consideration in the world, whom I could name, but I will not, because their posterity are made softened from this severity.

This indelible character of Sovereignty in Kings, & obedience in Subjects still remains the rights & duties, are inherent, unalienable, indefeasible, indestructible, & immortal. Hence the right of a Lieutenant, or Midshipman of a British Man of War, to search all American Ships, impress every Seaman his Judgeship shall decree by Law, & in fact, to be a subject of his king, and compel him to fight, though it may be against the Father Brother, or Son. My Countrymen! Will you submit to these miserable remnants of Priestcraft and Despotism?

…The Pope as head of the Church was Sovereign of the world. Henry the 8th deposed him, became head of the Church in England & consequently became sovereign Master, & proprietor of as much of the Globe as he could grasp. A Group of his Nobles hungered for immense landed Estate in America & obtained from his Quasi Holiness a large Tract. but it was useless & unprofitable to them. they must have Planters and Settlers. The sincere & conscientious Protestants, had been driven from England to Holland Germany & Switzerland Geneva &c. by the terrors of Stocks, Pillories, Croppings, Scourges, Imprisonments, Roastings & Burnings, under Henry the 8th Elizabeth Mary, James the first, & Charles the first…

John Adams, To Thomas Jefferson (February 13, 1819)

Festine lente, my friend, in all your projects of reformation abolish polytheism however in every shape if you can, and unfrock every priest who teaches it, if you can.

John Adams, To Thomas Jefferson (February 3, 1821)

I have long been decided in opinion that a free governme[nt] and the Roman Catholic religion can never exist together in any nation or Country, and consequently that all projects for reconciling them in old Spain or new are Utopian,4 Platonick and Chimerical. I have seen such a prostration and prostitution of Human Nature, to the Priest hood in old Spain as settled my judgment long ago, and I understand that in new Spain it is still worse if that is possible.

John Adams, To David Sewall (May 30, 1821)

I have received your kind favor of the 26th: Happy Man! profound Philosopher! Pious Christian! I congratulate you with all my heart. I read and hear read a great deal too much Not upon Prophicies immidiately, for I have read and heard so much of them heretofore and have found the Prophets for 1500 indeed for 1800 years so uniformly out in their calculations that I have long since concluded with Sir Isaac Newton that the Prophecys were not intended to make us Prophets. My pursuits have been somewhat different The Religions of Chaldea, Phœnicia, Carthage Egypt, Greece, Rome, Phrygeia, Turkey, Arabia, Tartary, Nigroland, Ashantee, Mexico, Peru and our North American Savages. And a deplorable study it has been. Faces of the true religion have been found every where but every where corrupted by mercenary politicians with superstition and Cruelties a mixture of Knavery and credulity, disgraceful to the human head & heart. One reflection among many is all I can write at present. I can not work up my mind to the [. . .]mous faith that all these millions and millions of Men are to be miserable and only a handful of Elect Calvinists happy forever. Missionary and Bible Societies are another Crusade. There are hundreds of Millions of people in Christendom as ignorant of Christianity as Hindoos & as vicious; Would it not be better to employ our wealth in enlightening and reforming these than in scattering it over the universe to very little purpose. The Crusades were invented by deeper Politicians than Richard Cœur de Leon or St Louis to prevent the Barrons from destroying Kings & Pope’s: and these Bible Societies have been invented by deeper Politicians still to divert mankind from the study and pursuit of their Natural Rights. I wish Societies were formed in India China & Turkey to send us gratis translations of their Sacred Books one good turn deserves another. I wish Turkes would teach Christians to obey the 8th: Commandment. A Mr Foster in London has lately published a work upon the evils of Popular Ignorance. I wish it was reprinted here and universally read. His Account of the ignorance in England and Europe I know is no exaggeration

Pardon the length & heresy of this letter from Your Friend

John Adams

John Adams, To Caleb Cushing (July 26, 1821)

I have been much affected with the uniformity of principles and sentiments, and the coincidence of topics, which appear in all the orations of the present year. A foreigner would suspect a concert among the orators; but this is impossible; for they come from various cities and distant states, which render any combination or conspiracy impracticable. They all concur in celebrating the greatest glory of America, the national assertion of the divine right of the people to institute governments, to create magistrates, lawgivers, and priests, in contradistinction, or rather in opposition, to the divine right of kings, nobles & hierophants.

John Adams, To Joseph Thaxter (August 28, 1822)

I agree with you in your opinions of the modern Crusade. Superstition and enthusiasm are excited and enkindled by politicians too deep and disguised to be suspected. The Crusades of five or seven hundred years ago, were excited by Kings, in alliance with Priests, to send away their feudal Barrons to exhaust their resources in men and money, and pour the Strength of Europe into Asia, while they were employed in establishing their Monarchies, at home. St Lewis himself, though he sat the example in person, had the same object in view.

The modern Crusades of Missionary Societies, have been excited and are still supported and encouraged by modern Monarchs in alliance with modern Priests and modern Nobles, the Sanctified legitimates and holy Leaguers, to divert the attention of the people from the study of their rights and the Science of Government. From this brief hint of my suspicions, you may conclude, that I contribute nothing to this Crusade and that I cannot advise you to contribute any thing.

John Adams, To Alexander Bryan Johnson (April 22, 1823)

To allude to Bolingbrokes figure, Man is a Noble Animal he is a bucephalus that requires an Alexander to ride him, And I believe he could not, without whip, spurs, and bridle. But of all the whips spurs and bridles, those of the Priests are the most detestable; and those of the Presbyterians are not much better, than those of the Episcopal hierarchy, And none of them are much better than those of Whydah and Ashantee, or North American Osages and Cherokees. I set at defiance all Ecclesiastical Authority, All their Creeds confessions and Excommunications; they have no Authority over me more than I have over them; I value more your maxims, than all their bulls, I thank them for all the good advice they give me and am willing to pay them for it, but I choose to judge for myself, whether it is good or not.

John Adams, To Caleb Stark, Jr. (March 14, 1824)

It has however caused much excitement here & as there are many Roman Catholics it has been used for purposes of priestcraft. But this will not do; the age is too enlightened for such preposterous superstition & though the impulse may be momentary it must soon pass over. We are such restless animals that we must have some such nonsense to think upon or we cannot live at all.

James Wilson (1742-1798)

James Wilson, Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament (1774)

The constitution of Great Britain is that of a limited monarchy; and in all limited monarchies, the power of preserving the limitations must be placed somewhere. During the reigns of the first Norman princes, this power seems to have resided in the clergy and in the barons by turns. But it was lodged very improperly. The clergy, zealous only for the dignity and preeminence of the church, neglected and despised the people, whom, with the soil they tilled, they would willingly have considered as the patrimony of St. Peter. Attached to a foreign jurisdiction, and aspiring at an entire independence of the civil powers, they looked upon the prerogatives of the crown as so many obstacles in the way of their favorite scheme of supreme ecclesiastical dominion; and therefore seized, with eagerness, every occasion of sacrificing the interests of their sovereign to those of the pope. Enemies alike to their king and to their country, their sole and unvaried aim was to reduce both to the most abject state of submission and slavery. The means employed by them to accomplish their pernicious purposes were, sometimes, to work upon the superstition of the people, and direct it against the power of the prince; and, at other times, to work upon the superstition of the prince, and direct it against the liberties of the people.

The power of preserving the limitations of monarchy, for the purposes of liberty, was not more properly placed in the barons. Domineering and turbulent, they oppressed their vassals, and treated them as slaves; they opposed their prince, and were impatient of every legal restraint. Capricious and inconstant, they sometimes abetted the king in his projects of tyranny; and, at other times, excited the people to insurrections and tumults. For these reasons, the constitution was ever fluctuating from one extreme to another; now despotism—now anarchy prevailed. 12 | 13

But after the representatives of the commons began to sit in a separate house; to be considered as a distinct branch of the legislature; and, as such, to be invested with separate and independent powers and privileges; then the constitution assumed a very different appearance. Having no interest contrary to that of the people, from among whom they were chosen, and with whom, after the session, they were again to mix, they had no views inconsistent with the liberty of their constituents, and therefore could have no motives to betray it. Sensible that prerogative, or a discretionary power of acting where the laws are silent, is absolutely necessary, and that this prerogative is most properly entrusted to the executor of the laws, they did not oppose the exercise of it, while it was directed towards the accomplishment of its original end: but sensible likewise, that the good of the state was this original end, they resisted, with vigor, every arbitrary measure, repugnant to law, and unsupported by maxims of public freedom or utility.

The checks, which they possessed over prerogative, were calm and gentle—operating with a secret, but effectual force—unlike the impetuous resistance of factious barons, or the boisterous fulminations of ambitious prelates.

James Wilson, Remarks in the Federal Convention (July 24, 1787)

(pg. 123)

The difficulties & perplexities into which the House is thrown proceed from the election by the Legislature which he was sorry had been reinstated. The inconveniency of this mode was such that he would agree to almost any length of time in order to get rid of the dependence which must result from it. He was persuaded that the longest term would not be equivalent to a proper mode of election; unless indeed it should be during good behavior. It seemed to be supposed that at a certain advance in life, a continuance in office would cease to be agreeable to the officer, as well as desirable to the public. Experience had shewn in a variety of instances that both a capacity & inclination for public service existed—in very advanced stages. He mentioned the instance of a Doge of Venice who was elected after he was 80 years of age. The popes have generally been elected at very advanced periods, and yet in no case had a more steady or a better concerted policy been pursued than in the Court of Rome.

James Wilson, Oration to Celebrate the Adoption of the Constitution of the United States (July 4, 1788)

But shall we confine our views even here? While we wish to be accomplished men and citizens, shall we wish to be nothing more? While we perform our duty, and promote our happiness in this world, shall we bestow no regards upon the next? Does no connection subsist between the two? From this connection flows the most important of all the blessings of good government. But here let us pause—unassisted reason can guide us 289 | 290 no farther—she directs us to that heaven-descended science, by which life and immortality have been brought to light… 290 | 293

…With heartfelt contentment, industry beholds his honest labors flourishing and secure. Peace walks serene and unalarmed over all the unmolested regions—while liberty, virtue, and religion go hand in hand, harmoniously, protecting, enlivening, and exalting all! Happy country! May thy happiness be perpetual!

James Wilson, Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation

After all, I am much inclined, for the honor of human nature, to believe, that all this doctrine concerning the divine right of kings was, at first, encouraged and cherished by many, from motives, mistaken certainly, but pardonable, and even laudable, and that it was intended not so much to 492 | 493 introduce the tyranny of princes, as to form a barrier against the tyranny of priests.

One of them, at the head of a numerous, a formidable, and a well-disciplined phalanx, claimed to be the Almighty’s vicegerent upon earth; claimed the power of deposing kings, disposing crowns, releasing subjects from their allegiance, and overruling the whole transactions of the Christian world. Superstition and ignorance dreaded, but could not oppose, the presumptuous claim. The Pope had obtained, what Archimedes wanted, another world, on which he placed his ecclesiastical machinery; and it was no wonder that he moved this according to his will and pleasure. Princes and potentates, states and kingdoms were prostrate before him. Everything human was obliged to bend under the incumbent pressure of divine control.

It is not improbable, that, in this disagreeable predicament, the divine right of kings was considered as the only principle, which could be opposed to the claims of the papal throne; and as the only means, which could preserve the civil, from being swallowed by the ecclesiastical powers.

This conjecture receives a degree of probability from a fact, which is mentioned in the history of France.

In a general assembly of the states of the kingdom, it was proposed to canonize this position—“that kings derive their authority immediately from God.” That such a proposition was made in an assembly of the states, the most popular body known in the kingdom, will, no doubt, occasion surprise. This surprise will be increased, when it is mentioned, that the proposition was patronized by the most popular part of that assembly: it was the third estate, which wished to pass it into a law. But everything is naturally and easily accounted for, when it is mentioned further, that the principal object, which the third estate had in view by this measure, was to secure the sovereign authority from the detestable maxims of those, who made it depend upon the pope, by giving him a power of absolving subjects from their oath of allegiance, and authorizing those who assassinated their princes as heretics [Puff. 656. n.].

The proposal did not pass into a law; because, among other reasons, the question was thought proper for the determination of the schools. But this 493 | 94 much may safely be inferred, that what was thought proper by the third estate to be passed into a law, would be generally received through the kingdom, as popular and wholesome doctrine.

James Wilson, Of the Laws of Nature

(pgs. 508-509, 523-25)

Having thus stated the question—what is the efficient cause of moral obligation?—I give it this answer—the will of God. This is the supreme law [Principem legem illam et ultimam, mentem esse dicebant, omnia ratione aut cogentis, aut vetantis dei. [“The first and final law, they used to say, is the mind of God, who forces or prohibits everything by reason.”] Cic. de leg. l. 2. c. 4]. His just and full right of imposing laws, and our duty in obeying them, are the sources of our moral obligations. If I am asked—why do you obey the will of God? I answer—because it is my duty so to do. If I am asked again—how do you know this to be your duty? I answer again—because I am told so by my moral sense or conscience. If I am asked a third time—how do you know that you ought to do that, of which your conscience enjoins the performance? I can only say, I feel that such is my duty. Here investigation must stop; reasoning can go no farther. The science of morals, as well as other sciences, is founded on truths, that cannot be discovered or proved by reasoning. Reason is confined to the investigation of unknown truths by the means of such as are known… 508 | 509 But that there is, in human nature, such a moral principle, has been felt and acknowledged in all ages and nations.

…[H]ow shall we, in particular instances, learn the dictates of our duty, and make, with accuracy, the proper distinction between right and wrong; in other words, how shall we, in particular cases, discover the will of God? We discover it by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures. The law of nature and the law of revelation are both divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is, indeed, preposterous to separate them from each other. The object of both is—to discover the will of God—and both are necessary for the accomplishment of that end… 509 | 523

The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. While these continue to be the same, it must continue to be the same also. This immutability of nature’s laws has nothing in it repugnant to the supreme power of an all-perfect Being. Since he himself is the author of our constitution; he cannot but command or forbid such things as are necessarily agreeable or disagreeable to this very constitution. He is under the glorious necessity of not contradicting himself. This necessity, far from limiting or diminishing his perfections, adds to their external character, and points out their excellency.

The law of nature is universal. For it is true, not only that all men are equally subject to the command of their Maker; but it is true also, that the law of nature, having its foundation in the constitution and state of man, has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction… 523 | 524

It is the glorious destiny of man to be always progressive. Forgetting those things that are behind, it is his duty, and it is his happiness, to press on towards those that are before. In the order of Providence, as has been observed on another occasion, the progress of societies towards perfection resembles that of an individual. This progress has hitherto been but slow: by many unpropitious events, it has often been interrupted: but may we not indulge the pleasing expectation, that, in future, it will be accelerated; and will meet with fewer and less considerable interruptions.

Many circumstances seem—at least to a mind anxious to see it, and apt to believe what it is anxious to see—many circumstances seem to indicate the opening of such a glorious prospect. The principles and the practice of liberty are gaining ground, in more than one section of the world. Where liberty prevails, the arts and sciences lift up their heads and flourish. Where the arts and sciences flourish, political and moral improvements will likewise be made. All will receive from each, and each will receive from all, mutual support and assistance: mutually supported and assisted, all may be carried to a degree of perfection hitherto unknown; perhaps, hitherto not believed.

“Men,” says the sagacious Hooker, “if we view them in their spring, are, at the first, without understanding or knowledge at all. Nevertheless, from this utter vacuity, they grow by degrees, till they become at length to be even as the angels themselves are. That which agreeth to the one now, the other shall attain to in the end: they are not so far disjoined and severed, but that they come at length to meet” [Hooker, b. 1. s. 6. p. 8] 524 | 525

Our progress in virtue should certainly bear a just proportion to our progress in knowledge. Morals are undoubtedly capable of being carried to a much higher degree of excellence than the sciences, excellent as they are. Hence we may infer that the law of nature, though immutable in its principles, will be progressive in its operations and effects. Indeed, the same immutable principles will direct this progression. In every period of his existence, the law, which the divine wisdom has approved for man, will not only be fitted, to the cotemporary degree, but will be calculated to produce, in future, a still higher degree of perfection.

James Wilson, Of the Municipal Law

(pgs. 569-70)

Some truths are too plain to be proved. That a law, which has been established by long and general custom, must have received its origin and introduction from free and voluntary consent, is a position that must be evident to everyone, who understands the force and meaning of the terms, in which it is expressed. My object is to imprint, as well as to prove, this great political doctrine. Perhaps this cannot be done better, than by laying before you the sentiments, which an English parliament held upon this subject, above two hundred years ago. You will see how strongly they support the principle—that the obligation of human laws arises from consent. The sentiments were expressed on an occasion similar to one, which will still suggest matter of very interesting recollection to many minds—They were expressed when an attempt was made to establish, in England, a foreign jurisdiction. With becoming indignation against it, the parliament declare—“This realm is free from subjection to any man’s laws, but only to such as have been devised, made, and obtained within this realm, for the wealth of the same, or to such as, by sufferance of your grace and your progenitors, the people of this your realm have taken at their free liberty, with their own consent to be used amongst them, and have bound themselves by long use and custom to the observance of the same, not as to 569 | 570 the observance of laws of any foreign prince, potentate, or prelate, but as to the customed and ancient laws of this realm, originally established as laws of the same, by the said sufferance, consents, and customs, and none otherwise” [St. 25. H. 8. c. 21. s. 1. (25 Henry VIII, Cap. 21)].

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

Thomas Jefferson, Notes of Witnesses’ Testimony Concerning the Canadian Campaign (July 1-27, 1776)

The Canadians are disposed favorably to us, notwithstanding the endeavors of the priests. They will now do nothing but what they are forced to by the enemy, unless it be a few. They would rather we should be there than the enemy, that is the peasantry. The priests, the lawyers, the Seigneurs, the merchants and the petite noblesse are against us. They liked the former English government much. After this martial law was proclaimed, which the inhabitants took and take now to be the Quebec bill. The Quebec bill is in favor of priests and lawyers, the Noblesse are bribed by pensions.

Thomas Jefferson, To George Wythe (August 13, 1786)

I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom, and happiness. If anybody thinks that kings, nobles, or priests are good conservators of the public happiness, send them here. It is the best school in the universe to cure them of that folly. They will see here with their own eyes that these descriptions of men are an abandoned confederacy against the happiness of the mass of people. The omnipotence of their effect cannot be better proved than in this country particularly, where notwithstanding the finest soil upon earth, the finest climate under heaven, and a people of the most benevolent, the most gay, and amiable character of which the human form is susceptible, where such a people I say, surrounded by so many blessings from nature, are yet loaded with misery by kings, nobles and priests, and by them alone. Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish and improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils, and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.

Thomas Jefferson, To James Madison (December 16, 1786)

The Virginia act for religious freedom has been received with infinite approbation in Europe and propagated with enthusiasm. I do not mean by the governments, but by the individuals which compose them. It has been translated into French and Italian, has been sent to most of the courts of Europe, and has been the best evidence of the falsehood of those reports which stated us to be in anarchy. It is inserted in the new Encyclopedia, and is appearing in most of the publications respecting America. In fact it is comfortable to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so many ages during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests and nobles; and it is honorable for us to have produced the first legislature who has had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions.

Thomas Jefferson, To John Jay (May 4, 1787)

The Priests are partly Portuguese, partly Brazilians, and will not interest themselves much. The Noblesse are scarcely known as such. They will in no manner be distinguished from the people. The men of letters are those most desirous of a revolution. The people are not much under the influence of their priests, most of them read and write, possess arms, and are in the habit of using them for hunting. The slaves will take the side of their masters. In short, as to the question of revolution, there is but one mind in that country. But there appears no person capable of conducting a revolution, or willing to venture himself at it’s head, without the aid of some powerful nation, as the people of their own might fail them…

He classes and characterizes the inhabitants of that country as follows. 1. The natives of old Spain, possessed of most of the offices of government, and firmly attached to it. 2. The clergy equally attached to the government. 3. The natives of Mexico, generally disposed to revolt, but without instruction, without energy, and much under the dominion of their priests.

Thomas Jefferson, To John Adams (November 13, 1787)

The wound their honor has sustained festers in their hearts, and it may be said with truth that the Archbishop and a few priests, determined to support his measures because proud to see their order come again into power, are the only advocates for the line of conduct which has been pursued.

Thomas Jefferson, To John Paradise (November 22, 1788)

The Notables are in session. They have proved themselves a mere combination of priests and Nobles against the people.

Thomas Jefferson, To Stephen Cathalan (November 25, 1788)

The Notables have deservedly lost their popularity since they have voted that the tiers etat shall have only an equal number of members with the nobles or the clergy. The court wished them to have as many as the nobles and clergy both together. This combination of priests and clergy will probably produce an alliance between the king and people. Whether it will end as that of England, or as that of Denmark is not for me to prophecy. But in either case it will end ill for priests and nobles.

Thomas Jefferson, To George Washington (December 4, 1788)

But the Notables, in the true spirit of priests and nobles, combining together against the people, have voted by 5 bureaux out of 6 that the people or tiers etat shall have no greater number of deputies than each of the other orders separately, and that they shall vote by orders: so that two orders concurring in a vote, the third will be overruled; for it is not here as in England where each of the three branches has a negative on the other two.

Thomas Jefferson, To William Carmichael (May 8, 1789)

We are in hopes therefore they were in that speech, which, like the Revelations of St. John, were no revelations at all…If the king will do business with the tiers etat which constitutes the nation, it may be well done without priests or nobles.

Thomas Jefferson, To William Linn (July 31, 1791)

I am to return you my thanks for the copy of the sermon you were so good as to send me, which I have perused with very great pleasure. It breathes that spirit of pure fraternity which exists in nature among all religions, and would make the ornament of all: and with the blessings we derive from religious liberty, makes us also sensible how highly we ought to value those of a temporal nature with which we are surrounded.

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the Legitimacy of Government (December 30, 1792)

I took the occasion furnished by Pinckney’s letter of Sep. 19. asking instructions how to conduct himself (as to the French revolution) to lay down the Catholic principle of republicanism, to wit, that every people may establish what form of government they please, and change it as they please. The will of the nation being the only thing essential.

Thomas Jefferson, To Tench Coxe (May 1, 1794)

Your letters give a comfortable view of French affairs, and later events seem to confirm it. Over the foreign powers I am convinced they will triumph completely, and I cannot but hope that that triumph and the consequent disgrace of the invading tyrants is destined in the order of events to kindle the wrath of the people of Europe against those who have dared to embroil them in such wickedness, and to bring at length kings, nobles and priests to the scaffolds which they have been so long deluging with human blood…

Thomas Jefferson, To James Madison (March 2, 1798)

it has already excited great commotion in Vermont, and grumblings in Connecticut. But they are so priest-ridden that nothing is to be expected from them but the most bigoted passive obedience. No news yet from our commissioners. But their silence is admitted to augur peace.

Thomas Jefferson, To Bishop James Madison (January 31, 1800)

[Weishaupt and Freemasonry] as you may not have had an opportunity of forming a judgment of this cry of ‘mad dog’ which has been raised against his doctrines, I will give you the idea I have formed from only an hour’s reading of Barruel’s quotations from him which you may be sure are not the most favorable. Weishaupt seems to be an enthusiastic Philanthropist. he is among those (as you know the excellent Price and Priestly also are) who believe in the indefinite perfectibility of man. he thinks he may in time be rendered so perfect that he will be able to govern himself in every circumstance so as to injure none, to do all the good he can, to leave government no occasion to exercise their powers over him, & of course to render political government useless. this, you know is Godwin’s doctrine, and this is what Robinson, Barruel & Morse have called a conspiracy against all government. Weishaupt believes that to promote this perfection of the human character was the object of Jesus Christ. that his intention was simply to reinstate natural religion, & by diffusing the light of his morality, to teach us to govern ourselves. his precepts are the love of god & love of our neighbor. and by teaching innocence of conduct, he expected to place men in their natural state of liberty & equality. he says, no one ever laid a surer foundation for liberty than our grand master, Jesus of Nazareth. he believes the Freemasons were originally possessed of the true principles & object of Christianity, and have still preserved some of them by tradition, but much disfigured. the means he proposes to effect this improvement of human nature are ‘to enlighten men, to correct their morals & inspire them with benevolence. secure of our success, sais he, we abstain from violent commotions. to have foreseen the happiness of posterity & to have prepared it by irreproachable means, suffices for our felicity. this tranquility of our consciences is not troubled by the reproach of aiming at the ruin or overthrow of states or thrones.’ as Weishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot & priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, and the principles of pure morality. he proposed therefore to lead the Freemasons to adopt this object, and to make the objects of their institution, the diffusion of science & virtue. he proposed to initiate new members into this body by gradations proportioned to his fears of the thunderbolts of tyranny. this has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment & the subversion of the Masonic order, and is the color for the ravings against him of Robinson, Barruel & Morse, whose real fears are that the craft would be endangered by the spreading of information reason & natural morality among men.—this subject being new to me, I have imagined that if it be so to you also, you may receive the same satisfaction in seeing, which I have had in forming the Analysis of it: and I believe you will think with me that if Weishaupt had written here, where no secrecy is necessary in our endeavors to render men wise & virtuous, he would not have thought of any secret machinery for that purpose: as Godwin, if he had written in Germany, might probably also have thought secrecy & mysticism prudent.

Thomas Jefferson, To William Short (March 17, 1801)

In this transition the New England states are slowest because under the dominion of their priests who had begun to hope they could toll us on to an established church to be in union with the state.

Thomas Jefferson, To Elbridge Gerry (March 29, 1801)

Those who have acted well have nothing to fear, however they may have differed from me in opinion: those who have done ill, however, have nothing to hope; nor shall I fail to do justice, lest it should be ascribed to that difference of opinion. A coalition of sentiments is not for the interest of the printers. They, like the clergy, live by the zeal they can kindle, & the schisms they can create. It is contest of opinion in politics as well as religion which makes us take great interest in them, and bestow our money liberally on those who furnish aliment to our appetite. the mild and simple principles of the Christian philosophy, would produce too much calm, too much regularity of good, to extract from it’s disciples a support for a numerous priesthood, were they not to sophisticate it, ramify it, split it into hairs, and twist it’s texts till they cover the divine morality of it’s author with mysteries, and require a priesthood to explain them. The Quakers seem to have discovered this. They have no priests, therefore no schisms. They judge of the text by the dictates of common sense & common morality. So the printers can never leave us to a state of perfect rest and union of opinion. They would be no longer useful, and would have to go to the plough. In the first moments of quietude which have succeeded the election, they seem to have aroused their lying faculties beyond their ordinary state, to reagitate the public mind.

Thomas Jefferson, To Peter Carr (October 25, 1801)

We shall completely consolidate the nation in a short time; excepting always the Royalists & Priests.

Thomas Jefferson, To John Wayles Eppes (January 1, 1802)

The Mammoth cheese is arrived here, & is to be presented to-day. It is 4. f. 4½ I. in diameter, 15. I. thick, & in August weighed 1230. ℔. It is an ebullition of republicanism in a state where it has been under heavy oppression. That state of things however is rapidly passing away, and there is a speedy prospect of seeing all the New England states come round to their ancient principles; always excepting the real Monarchists & the Priests, who never can lose sight of the natural alliance between the crown and miter.

Thomas Jefferson, To Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours (January 18, 1802)

I am perfectly satisfied the effect of the proceedings of this session of Congress will be to consolidate the great body of well meaning citizens together, whether federal or republican, heretofore called. I do not mean to include royalists or priests. Their opposition is immoveable. But they will be vox et preterea nihil: leaders without followers…

Thomas Jefferson, To Maria Cosway (January 31, 1803)

You express anxieties for the Catholic religion here. All religions here are equally free, and equally protected by the laws, and left to be supported by their own respective votaries. In some places the Catholic is better off than other sects, as they possess valuable endowments of land.

Thomas Jefferson, To Levi Lincoln (March 23, 1803)

With thanks for the perusal, and sincere congratulations on the pleasure you must experience from the possession of a son whose talents afford a prospect not less comfortable to his family than promising to his country. amid the dreary prospect of a rising generation committed from their infancy to the education of bigoted & monarchical priests (for in their hands are nearly all the youth of the US.) It is a comfort to see some individuals rising by the native force of their genius & virtue above the slavish precepts of their tutors, and shewing that among those to whom we are to deliver over the freedom & happiness of our country, there will not be wanting some advocates at least for the rights & dignity of man. I hail with sanctimonious reverence old Massachusetts, recovering, like Samson, her shorn locks, grasping the pillars to which she has been chained, and overturning the fabric & the Philistines together.

Thomas Jefferson, To William C.C. Claiborne (May 24, 1803)

In Connecticut we have rather lost in their legislature, but in the mass of the people where we had, on the election of Governor the last year but 29. republican out of every 100. votes, we this year have 35. of every 100. with the phalanx of priests & lawyers against us, republicanism works up slowly in that quarter.

Thomas Jefferson, To James Madison (July 5, 1804)

I think it was an error in our officer to shut the doors of the church, & in the Governor to refer it to the Roman catholic head. The priests must settle their differences in their own way, provided they commit no breach of the peace. If they break the peace they should be arrested. On our principles all church-discipline is voluntary; and never to be enforced by the public authority; but on the contrary to be punished when it extends to acts of force. The Governor should restore the keys of the church to the priest who was in possession.

Thomas Jefferson, To Thomas Seymour (February 11, 1807)

It would seem impossible that an intelligent people, with the faculty of reading, & right of thinking, could continue much longer to slumber under the pupilage of an interested aristocracy of priests & lawyers, persuading them to distrust themselves, & to let them think for them. I sincerely wish that your efforts may awaken them from this voluntary degradation of mind, restore them to a due estimate of themselves & their fellow citizens, and a just abhorrence of the falsehoods & artifices which have seduced them.

Thomas Jefferson, To James Fishback (Draft) (September 27, 1809)

I thank you for the pamphlet you were so kind as to send me. at an earlier period of life I pursued enquiries of that kind with industry & care. reading, reflection & time have convinced me it is better to be quiet myself, & let others be quiet on these speculations. every religion consists of moral precepts, & of dogmas. in the first they all agree. all forbid us to murder, steal, plunder, bear false witness, etc. and these are the articles necessary for the preservation of order, justice, & happiness in society. in their particular dogmas all differ; no two professing the same. these respect vestments, ceremonies, physical opinions, & metaphysical speculations, totally unconnected with morality, & unimportant to the legitimate objects of society. yet these are the questions on which have hung the bitter schisms of Nazarenes, Socinians, Arians, Athanasians in former times, & now of Trinitarians, Unitarians, Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, etc. among the Mahometans we are told that thousands fell victims to the dispute whether the first or second toe of Mahomet was longest; & what blood, how many human lives have the words ‘this do in remembrance of me’ cost the Christian world! we all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus: but we schismatize & lose ourselves in subtleties about his nature, his conception maculate or immaculate, whether he was a god or not a god, whether his votaries are to be initiated by simple aspersion, by immersion, or without water; whether his priests must be robed in white, in black, or not robed at all; whether we are to use our own reason, or the reason of others, in the opinions we form, or as to the evidence we are to believe. it is on questions of this, & still less importance, that such oceans of human blood have been spilt, & whole regions of the earth have been desolated by wars & persecutions, in which human ingenuity has been exhausted in inventing new tortures for their brethren. it is time then to become sensible how insoluble these questions are by minds like ours, how unimportant, & how mischievous; & to consign them to the sleep of death, never to be awakened from it. the varieties in the structure & action of the human mind, as in those of the body, are the work of our creator, against which it cannot be a religious duty to erect the standard of uniformity. the practice of morality being necessary for the wellbeing of society, he has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts, that they shall not be effaced by the whimsies of our brain. hence we see good men in all religions, and as many in one as another. it is then a matter of principle with me to avoid disturbing the tranquility of others by the expression of any opinion on the innocent questions on which we schismatize, & think it enough to hold fast to those moral precepts which are of the essence of Christianity, & of all other religions. Nowhere are these to be found in greater purity than in the discourses of the great reformer of religion whom we follow.

Thomas Jefferson, To William Duane (November 13, 1810)

I should be glad to see their farmers and mechanics come here, but I hope their nobles, priests, and merchants will be kept at home to be moralized by the discipline of the new government.

Thomas Jefferson, To Alexander von Humboldt (April 14, 1811)

I imagine they will copy our outlines of confederation & elective government, abolish distinction of ranks, bow the neck to their priests, & persevere in intolerantism.

Thomas Jefferson, To Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours (April 15, 1811)

Another great field of political experiment is opening in our neighborhood, in Spanish America. I fear the degrading ignorance into which their priests & kings have sunk them, has disqualified them from the maintenance, or even knowledge of their rights, & that much blood may be shed for little improvement in their condition. Should their new rulers honestly lay their shoulders to remove the great obstacle of ignorance, and press the remedies of education & information, they will still be in jeopardy until another generation comes into place, & what may happen in the interval cannot be predicted, nor shall you or I live to see it. in these cases I console myself with the reflection that those who will come after us will be as wise as we are, & as able to take care of themselves as we have been.

Thomas Jefferson, To Tadeusz Kosciuszko (April 16, 1811)

Spanish America is all in revolt. The insurgents are triumphant in many of the states, & will be so in all. But there the danger is that the cruel arts of their oppressors have enchained their minds, have kept them in the ignorance of children, and as incapable of self-government as children. If the obstacles of bigotry & priest-craft can be surmounted we may hope that Common sense will suffice to do everything else. God send them a safe deliverance.

Thomas Jefferson, To John Adams (August 22, 1813)

It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, & one is three; & yet the one is not three, and the three are not one: to divide mankind by a single letter into ὁμοουςιans, and ὁμοιουςιans. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. we should all then, like the Quakers, live without an order of priests, moralize for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe; for I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition.

Thomas Jefferson, To John Adams (October 12, 1813)

In extracting the pure principles which he [Jesus] taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to them.

Thomas Jefferson, To Lafayette (November 30, 1813)

I join you sincerely, my friend in wishes for the emancipation of South America. That they will be liberated from foreign subjection I have little doubt. But the result of my enquiries does not authorize me to hope they are capable of maintaining a free government. Their people are immersed in the darkest ignorance, and brutalized by bigotry & superstition. Their priests make of them what they please.

Thomas Jefferson, To Alexander von Humboldt (December 6, 1813)

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

Thomas Jefferson, To Horatio G. Spafford (March 17, 1814)

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. it is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them: and to effect this they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man, into mystery & jargon unintelligible to all mankind & therefore the safer engine for their purposes…

In truth Blackstone and Hume have made Tories of all England, and are making Tories of those young Americans whose native feelings of independence do not place them above the wily sophistries of a Hume or a Blackstone. these two books, but especially the former have done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man, than all the million of men in arms of Bonaparte and the millions of human lives with the sacrifice of which he will stand loaded before the judgment seat of his maker. I fear nothing for our liberty from the assaults of force; but I have seen and felt much, and fear more from English books, English prejudices, English manners, and the apes, the dupes, and designs among our professional crafts. when I look around me for security against these seductions, I find it in the widespread of our Agricultural citizens, in their unsophisticated minds, their independence and their power if called on to crush the Humists of our cities, and to maintain the principles which severed us from England.

Thomas Jefferson, To Nicolas G. Dufief (April 19, 1814)

I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this can become a subject of enquiry, and of criminal enquiry too, as an offence against religion: that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a Censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? and who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? is a Priest to be our Inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, & what we must believe? it is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not; and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason…

I have been just reading the new constitution of Spain. One of its fundamental bases is expressed in these words. ‘the Roman Catholic religion, the only true one, is, & always shall be that of the Spanish nation. the government protects it by wise & just laws, and prohibits the exercise of any other whatever.’ now I wish this presented to those who question what you may sell, or we may buy, with a request to strike out the words ‘Roman catholic’ and to insert the denomination of their own religion. This would ascertain the code of dogmas which each wishes should domineer over the opinions of all others, & be taken like the Spanish religion, under the ‘protection of wise and just laws.’ It would shew to what they wish to reduce the liberty for which one generation has sacrificed life and happiness. it would present our boasted freedom of religion as a thing of theory only, & not of practice, as what would be a poor exchange for the theoretic thraldom, but practical freedom of Europe. but it is impossible that the laws of Pennsylvania, which set us the first example of the wholesome & happy effects of religious freedom, can permit these inquisitorial functions to be proposed to their courts. under them you are surely safe.

Thomas Jefferson, To Thomas Law (June 13, 1814)

If we did a good act merely from the love of god, and a belief that it is pleasing to him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say as some do, that no such being exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit, their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed indeed generally that, while in protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, Dalembert, D’Holbach Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue then must have had some other foundation than the love of god.

Thomas Jefferson, To Miles King (September 26, 1814)

Whether the particular revelation which you suppose to have been made to yourself were real or imaginary, your reason alone is the competent judge. for, dispute as long as we will on religious tenets, our reason at last must ultimately decide, as it is the only oracle which god has given us to determine between what really comes from him, & the phantasms of a disordered or deluded imagination. When he means to make a personal revelation he carries conviction of it’s authenticity to the reason he has bestowed as the umpire of truth. you believe you have been favored with such a special communication. your reason, not mine, is to judge of this: and if it shall be his pleasure to favor me with a like admonition, I shall obey it with the same fidelity with which I would obey his known will in all cases. Hitherto I have been under the guidance of that portion of reason which he has thought proper to deal out to me. I have followed it faithfully in all important cases, to such a degree at least as leaves me without uneasiness; and if on minor occasions I have erred from its dictates, I have trust in him who made us what we are, and knows it was not his plan to make us always unerring. he has formed us moral agents, not that, in the perfection of his state, he can feel pain or pleasure from anything we may do: he is far above our power: but that we may promote the happiness of those with whom he has placed us in society, by acting honestly towards all, benevolently to those who fall within our way, respecting sacredly their rights bodily and mental, and cherishing especially their freedom of conscience, as we value our own. I must ever believe that religion substantially good which produces an honest life, and we have been authorized by one, whom you and I equally respect, to judge of the tree by its fruit. our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our god alone. I enquire after no man’s, and trouble none with mine: nor is it given to us in this life to know whether yours or mine, our friends or our foes are exactly the right. Nay, we have heard it said that there is not a quaker or a baptist, a presbyterian or an episcopalian, a catholic or a protestant in heaven: that, on entering that gate, we leave those badges of schism behind, and find ourselves united in those principles only in which god has united us all. Let us not be uneasy then about the different roads we may pursue, as believing them the shortest, to that our last abode: but, following the guidance of a good conscience, let us be happy in the hope that, by these different paths, we shall all meet in the end. And that you and I may there meet and embrace is my earnest prayer: and with this assurance I salute you with brotherly esteem and respect.

Thomas Jefferson, To Charles Clary (January 29, 1815)

I abuse the priests indeed, who have so much abused the pure and holy doctrines of their master, and who have laid me under no obligations of reticence as to the tricks of their trade. the genuine system of Jesus, and the artificial structures they have erected to make him the instrument of wealth, power, and preeminence to themselves are as distinct things in my view as light and darkness: and, while I have classed them with soothsayers and necromancers, I place him among the greatest of the reformers of morals, and scourges of priest-craft, that have ever existed. They felt him as such, and never rested till they silenced him by death. But his heresies against Judaism prevailing in the long run, the priests have tacked about, and rebuilt upon them the temple which he destroyed, as splendid, as profitable, and as imposing as that.

Government, as well as religion, has furnished its schisms, its persecutions, and its devices for fattening idleness on the earnings of the people. It has its hierarchy of emperors, kings, princes & nobles, as that has of popes, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and priests. In short, Cannibals are not to be found in the wilds of America only, but are reveling on the blood of every living people. Turning then from this loathsome combination of church and state, and weeping over the follies of our fellow-men, who yield themselves the willing dupes & drudges of these Mountebanks, I consider reformation and redress as desperate, & abandon them to the Quixotism of more enthusiastic minds.

Thomas Jefferson, To Benjamin Waterhouse (October 13, 1815)

The priests have so disfigured the simple religion of Jesus that no one who reads the sophistications they have engrafted on it, from the jargon of Plato, of Aristotle & other mystics, would conceive these could have been fathered on the sublime preacher of the sermon on the mount. Yet, knowing the importance of names they have assumed that of Christians, while they are mere Platonists, or any thing rather than disciples of Jesus. One of these parties beginning now to strip off these meretricious trappings; their followers may take courage to make thorough work, and restore to us the figure in its original simplicity and beauty. The effects of this squabble therefore, whether religious or political, cannot fail to be good in some way.

Thomas Jefferson, To John Taylor (May 28, 1816)

The first shade from this pure element, which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen by the citizens, either pro hac vice [“for this occasion”], or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population. And we have examples of it in some of our state-constitutions, which, if not poisoned by priest-craft, would prove its excellence over all mixtures with other elements; and, with only equal doses of poison, would still be the best.

Thomas Jefferson, To Francis Adrian van der Kemp (July 30, 1816)

Although I rarely waste time in reading on theological subjects, as mangled by our Pseudo-Christians, yet I can readily suppose Basanistos may be amusing. ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. If it could be understood it would not answer their purpose. Their security is in their faculty of shedding darkness, like the cuttlefish, through the element in which they move, and making it impenetrable to the eye of a pursuing enemy. And there they will skulk, until some rational creed can occupy the void which the obliteration of their duperies would leave in the minds of our honest and unsuspecting brethren. Whenever this shall take place, I believe that Christianism may be universal & eternal.

Thomas Jefferson, To John Adams (August 1, 1816)

Old Europe will have to lean on our shoulders, and to hobble along by our side, under the monkish trammels of priests & kings, as she can. What a Colossus shall we be when the Southern continent comes up to our mark! What a stand will it secure as a ralliance [“rallying”] for the reason & freedom of the globe! I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past. So good night! I will dream on, always fancying that Mrs. Adams and yourself are by my side marking the progress and the obliquities of ages and countries.

Thomas Jefferson, To Madame de Stael Holstein (September 6, 1816)

The whole Southern continent [South America] is sunk in the deepest ignorance and bigotry. A single priest is more than a sufficient opponent to a whole army; and were it not that the lower clergy, as poor and oppressed as the people themselves, has very much taken side with the revolutionists, their cause would have been desperate from the beginning. But, when their independence shall be established, the same ignorance & bigotry will render them incapable of forming and maintaining a free government: and it is excruciating to believe that all will end in military despotisms under the Bonapartes of their regions. The only comfortable prospect which this clouded horizon offers is that, these revolutionary movements having excited into exercise that common sense which nature has implanted in everyone, it will go on advancing towards the lights of cultivated reason, will become sensible of its own powers, and in time be able to form some canons of freedom, and to restrain their leaders to an observance of them. In the meantime we must pray to god as most heartily we do for your country, that “he will be pleased to give them patience under their sufferings, and a happy issue out of all their afflictions.”

Thomas Jefferson, To George Logan (November 12, 1816)

When we see religion split into so many thousands of sects, and I may say Christianity itself divided into its thousands also, who are disputing, anathematizing, and where the laws permit, burning and torturing one another for abstraction[s] which no one of them understand, and which are indeed beyond the comprehension of the human mind, into which of the chambers of this Bedlam would a man wish to thrust himself. The sum of all religion, as expressed by it’s best preacher, “fear God and love thy neighbor,” contains no mystery, needs no explanation. But this won’t do. It gives no scope to make dupes; priests could not live by it.

Thomas Jefferson, To John Adams (November 25, 1816)

My books are all arrived, some at New York, some at Boston; and I am glad to hear that those for Harvard are safe also; and the Uranologia you mention, without telling me what it is. It is something good, I am sure, from the name connected with it, and if you would add to it your Fable of the bees, we should receive valuable instruction as to the Uranologia both of the father & son; more valuable than the Chinese will from our bible-societies. These Incendiaries, finding that the days of fire and faggot are over in the Atlantic hemisphere, are now preparing to put the torch to the Asiatic regions. What would they say were the Pope to send annually to this country colonies of Jesuit priests with cargoes of their Missal and translations of their Vulgate, to be put gratis into the hands of everyone who would accept them? And to act thus nationally on us as a nation?…their sinecures, salaries, pensions, priests, prelates, princes and eternal wars have mortgaged to its full value the last foot of their soil…the princes & priests will hold to the flesh-pots, the empty bellies will seize on them, & these being the multitude, the issue is obvious, civil war, massacre, exile as in France, until the stage is cleared of everything but the multitude, and the lands get into their hands by such processes as the revolution will engender.

Thomas Jefferson, To John Adams (January 11, 1817)

The result of your 50 or 60 years of religious reading in the four words “be just and good” is that in which all our enquiries must end; as the riddles of all the priesthoods end in four more “ubi panis, ibi deus” [“Where there is bread, there is God”]. What all agree in is probably right; what no two agree in most probably wrong. One of our fan-coloring biographers, who paints small men as very great, enquired of me lately, with real affection too, whether he might consider as authentic, the change in my religion much spoken of in some circles. Now this supposed that they knew what had been my religion before, taking for it the word of their priests, whom I certainly never made the confidants of my creed. My answer was “say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life. If that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.”

Thomas Jefferson, To Lafayette (May 14, 1817)

Allowing to Spain a nominal supremacy with authority only to keep the peace among them, leaving them otherwise all the powers of self-government, until their experience in them, their emancipation from their priests, and advancement in information shall prepare them for complete independence.

Thomas Jefferson, To Samuel Adams Wells (June 23, 1819)

Of the return of Massachusetts to sound principles I never had a doubt. The body of her citizens has never been otherwise than republican. Her would-be dukes and lords indeed, have been itching for coronets; her lawyers for robes of ermine, her priests for lawn sleeves, and for a religious establishment which might give them wealth, power, and independence on personal merit: but her citizens who were to supply with the sweat of their brow the treasures on which these drones were to riot, would never have seen anything to long for in the oppressions and pauperisms of England. After the shackles of Aristocracy, of the bar & priesthood have been burst by Connecticut, we cannot doubt the return of Massachusetts to the bosom of the republican family.

Thomas Jefferson, To José Corrêa da Serra (April 11, 1820)

The most restive is that of the priests of the different religious sects, who dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of day-light; and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversion of the duperies on which they live. In this the Presbyterian clergy take the lead. The tocsin is sounded in all their pulpits, and the first alarm denounced is against the particular creed of Doctor Cooper; and as impudently denounced as if they really knew what it is. but of this we will talk when you see us at Monticello.

Thomas Jefferson, To William Short (April 13, 1820)

But while this Syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in it’s true and high light, as no imposter himself, but a great Reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of spiritualism: he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin, I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it etc. etc. It is the innocence of his character, the purity & sublimity of his moral precepts, the eloquence of his inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which he conveys them, that I so much admire; sometimes indeed needing indulgence to Eastern hyperbolism…

The serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects, to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is ominous. Their pulpits are now resounding with denunciations against the appointment of Dr. Cooper whom they charge as a Monotheist in opposition to their tritheism. Hostile as these sects are in every other point, to one another, they unite in maintaining their mystical theogony against those who believe there is one god only. The Presbyterian clergy are loudest. The most intolerant of all sects, the most tyrannical, and ambitious; ready at the word of the lawgiver, if such a word could be now obtained, to put the torch to the pile, and to rekindle in this virgin hemisphere, the flames in which their oracle Calvin consumed the poor Servetus, because he could not find in his Euclid the proposition which has demonstrated that three are one, and one is three, nor subscribe to that of Calvin that magistrates have a right to exterminate all heretics to Calvinistic creed. They pant to reestablish by law that holy inquisition, which they can now only infuse into public opinion. We have most unwisely committed to the hierophants of our particular superstition, the direction of public opinion, that lord of the Universe. We have given them stated and privileged days to collect and catechize us, opportunities of delivering their oracles to the people in mass, and of molding their minds as wax in the hollow of their hands. But, in despite of their fulminations against endeavors to enlighten the general mind, to improve the reason of the people, and encourage them in the use of it, the liberality of this state will support this institution, and give fair play to the cultivation of reason.

Thomas Jefferson, To Joseph Marx (July 8, 1820)

Thomas Jefferson presents to Mr. Marx his compliments & thanks for the Transactions of the Paris Sanhedrim, which he shall read with great interest, and with the regret he has ever felt at seeing, a sect [the Jews] the parent and basis of all those of Christendom, singled out by all of them for a persecution and oppression which prove they have profited nothing from the benevolent doctrines of him whom they profess to make the model of their principles and practice.

Thomas Jefferson, To Charles Willson Peale (August 26, 1820)

I ought sooner to have thanked you for your sketch of the Court of death, which we have all contemplated with great approbation of the composition and design. it presents to the eye more morality than many written volumes, and with impressions much more durable and indelible. I have been sensible that the scriptural paintings in the Catholic churches produce deeper impressions on the people generally than they receive from reading the books themselves.

Thomas Jefferson, To Jared Sparks (November 4, 1820)

The metaphysical insanities of Athanasius, of Loyola, & of Calvin, are to my understanding, mere relapses into polytheism, differing from paganism only by being more unintelligible.1 the religion of Jesus is founded on the Unity of God, and this principle chiefly, gave it triumph over the rabble of heathen gods then acknowledged. thinking men of all nations rallied readily to the doctrine of one only god, and embraced it with the pure morals which Jesus inculcated. if the freedom of religion, guaranteed to us by law in theory, can ever rise in practice under the overbearing inquisition of public opinion, truth will prevail over fanaticism, and the genuine doctrines of Jesus, so long perverted by his pseudo-priests, will again be restored to their original purity. this reformation will advance with the other improvements of the human mind but too late for me to witness it.

Thomas Jefferson, To Thomas Whittemore (June 5, 1822)

I thank you, Sir, for the pamphlets you have been so kind as to send me, and am happy to learn that the doctrine of Jesus, that there is but one God, is advancing prosperously among our fellow-citizens. had his doctrines, pure as they came from himself, been never sophisticated for unworthy purposes, the whole civilized world would at this day have formed but a single sect. you ask my opinion on the items of doctrine in your catechism. I have never permitted myself to meditate a specified creed. these formulas have been the bane & ruin of the Christian church, it’s own fatal invention which, thro’ so many ages, made of Christendom a slaughter house, and at this day divides it into Casts of inextinguishable hatred to one another. witness the present internecine rage of all other sects against the Unitarian. the religions of antiquity had no particular formulas of creed. those of the modern world none; except those of the religionists calling themselves Christians, and even among these, the Quakers have none. and hence alone the harmony the quiet, the brotherly affections, the exemplary and unschismatizing society of the Friends. and I hope the Unitarians will follow their happy example.  With these sentiments of the mischiefs of creeds and confessions of faith, I am sure you will excuse my not giving opinions on the items of any particular one…

Thomas Jefferson, To Benjamin Waterhouse (June 26, 1822)

I rejoice that in this blessed country of free enquiry and belief, which has surrendered it’s creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the US. who will not die an Unitarian.

But much I fear that when this great truth shall be re-established, it’s Votaries will fall into the fatal error of fabricating formulas of creed, and Confessions of faith, the engines which so soon destroyed the religion of Jesus, and made of Christendom a mere Aceldama: that they will give up morals for mysteries, & Jesus for Plato. how much wiser are the Quakers, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, schismatize about no mysteries, and keeping within the pale of Common sense, suffer no speculative differences of opinion, any more than of feature, to impair the love of their brethren. be this the wisdom of Unitarians; this the holy mantle, which shall cover within it’s charitable circumference all who believe in one God. and who love their neighbor.

Thomas Jefferson, To Thomas Cooper (November 2, 1822)

The atmosphere of our country is unquestionably charged with a threatening cloud of fanaticism, lighter in some parts, denser in others, but too heavy in all. I had no idea however that in Pennsylvania, the cradle of toleration and freedom of religion, it could have arisen to the height you describe. This must be owing to the growth of Presbyterianism the blasphemy and absurdity of the five points of Calvin, and the impossibility of defending them render their advocates impatient of reasoning, irritable & prone to denunciation. In Boston however and it’s neighborhood, Unitarianism has advanced to so great strength as now to humble this haughtiest of all religious sects; insomuch that they condescend to interchange with them and the other sects the civilities of preaching freely & frequently in each other’s meeting houses. In Rhode island on the other hand, no sectarian preacher will permit an Unitarian to pollute his desk. in our Richmond there is much fanaticism, but chiefly among the women: they have their night meetings, and praying-parties, where attended by their priests, and sometimes a hen-pecked husband, they pour forth the effusions of their love to Jesus in terms as amatory and carnal as their modesty would permit them to use to a more earthly lover. In our village of Charlottesville there is a good degree of religion with a small spice only of fanaticism. we have four sects, but without either church or meeting house. The Court house is the common temple, one Sunday in the month to each. Here Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist meet together, join in hymning their maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others preachers, and all mix in society with perfect harmony. It is not so in the districts where Presbyterianism prevails undividedly. Their ambition and tyranny would tolerate no rival if they had power. Systematical in grasping at an ascendancy over all other sects, they aim like the Jesuits at engrossing the education of the country are hostile to every institution which they do not direct, and jealous at seeing others begin to attend at all to that object. The diffusion of instruction to which there is now so growing an attention, will be the remote remedy to this fever of fanaticism, while the more proximate one will be the progress of Unitarianism, that this will ere long be the religion of the majority from North to South, I have no doubt.

In our University you know there is no professorship of divinity. a handle has been made of this to disseminate an idea that this is an institution, not merely of no religion, but against all religion. Occasion was taken at the last meeting of the Visitors, to bring forward an idea which might silence this calumny, which weighed on the minds of some honest friends to the institution. in our annual report to the legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expedient of encouraging the different religious sects to establish each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the University, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use of our library, and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving however their independence of us & of each other. This fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institution professing to give instruction in all useful sciences. I think the invitation will be accepted by some sects from candid intentions, and by others from jealousy and rivalship. And by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason and morality.

Thomas Jefferson, To Michael Megear (May 29, 1823)

[I] shall learn from them [your letters] with satisfaction the peculiar tenets of the Friends, and particularly their opinions on the incomprehensibilities (otherwise called the mysteries) of the trinity. I think with them on many points, and especially on missionary and Bible societies. While we have so many around us, within the same social pale, who need instruction and assistance, why carry to a distance, and to strangers what our own neighbors need? It is a duty certainly to give our sparings to those who want: but to see also that they are faithfully distributed, & duly apportioned to the respective wants of those receivers. And why give through agents whom we know not to persons whom we know not, and in countries from which we get no account, when we can do it at short hand, to objects under our eye, through agents we know, and to supply wants we see? I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and faggot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his Holy allies to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their Orthodoxy I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a National aggression on our peace and faith. I salute you in the spirit of place and good will.

Thomas Jefferson, To William Johnson (June 12, 1823)

The doctrines of Europe were that men in numerous associations cannot be restrained within the limits of order and justice but by forces physical and moral wielded over them by authorities independent of their will. Hence their organization of kings, hereditary nobles, and priests. Still further to constrain the brute force of the people, they deem it necessary to keep them down by hard labor, poverty and ignorance, and to take from them, as from bees, so much of their earnings as that unremitting labor shall be necessary to obtain a sufficient surplus barely to sustain a scanty and miserable life. And these earnings they apply to maintain their privileged orders in splendor and idleness, to fascinate the eyes of the people, and excite in them an humble adoration and submission as to an order of superior beings. Although few among us had gone all these lengths of opinion, yet many had advanced, some more, some less on the way. And in the Convention which formed our government, they endeavored to draw the cords of power as tight as they could obtain them, to lessen the dependence of the general functionaries on their constituents, to subject to them those of the states, to weaken their means of maintaining the steady equilibrium which the majority of the Convention had deemed salutary for both branches general and local. To recover therefore in practice the powers which the nation had refused, and to warp to their own wishes those actually given, was the steady object of the federal party. Ours, on the contrary, was to maintain the will of the majority of the Convention, and of the people themselves. We believed with them that man was a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights, and with an innate sense of justice, and that he could be restrained from wrong, & protected in right, by moderate powers, confided to persons of his own choice, and held to their duties by dependence on his own will—we believe that the complicated organization of kings, nobles, and priests was not the wisest nor best to effect the happiness of associated man; that wisdom and virtue were not hereditary; that the trappings of such a machinery consumed, by their expense, those earnings of industry they were meant to protect, and, by the inequalities they produced, exposed liberty to sufferance. We believed that men, enjoying in ease and security the full fruits of their own industry, enlisted by all their interests on the side of law and order, habituated to think for themselves and to follow their reason as their guide, would be more easily and safely governed than with minds nourished in error, and vitiated and debased, as in Europe, by ignorance, indigence and oppression.

Thomas Jefferson, To John Adams (September 4, 1823)

The generation which commences a revolution rarely completes it. Habituated from their infancy to passive submission of body and mind to their kings and priests, they are not qualified, when called on, to think and provide for themselves and their inexperience, their ignorance and bigotry make them instruments often, in the hands of the Bonapartes and Iturbides [first Emperor of Mexico] to defeat their own rights and purposes. This is the present situation of Europe and Spanish America. But it is not desperate. The light which has been shed on mankind by the art of printing has eminently changed the condition of the world. As yet that light has dawned on the middling classes only of the men of Europe. The kings and the rabble of equal ignorance, have not yet received its rays; but it continues to spread. And, while printing is preserved, it can no more recede than the sun return on his course. A first attempt to recover the right of self-government may fail, so may a 2^nd, a 3^rd, etc. but as a younger, and more instructed race comes on, the sentiment becomes more and more intuitive, and a 4^th a 5^th or some subsequent one of the ever renewed attempts will ultimately succeed…you and I shall look down from another world on these glorious achievements to man, which will add to the joys even of heaven.

Thomas Jefferson, To Ellen Wayles Randolph Coolidge (August 27, 1825)

But, from Saratoga till we got back to Northampton, was then mostly desert. Now it is what 34 years of free and good government have made it. It shews how soon the labor of man would make a paradise of the whole earth, were it not for misgovernment, & a diversion of all his energies from their proper object, the happiness of man, to the selfish interests of kings, nobles and priests.

Joseph Story (1779-1845)

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833)

SOURCE: Justice Joseph Story, Thomas M. Colley, ed., Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, in Two Volumes: Volume 2, 4th ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1873).

(Book 3, Ch. 43, §§1847-1849) (pgs. 590-93)

(§1847) The remaining part of the clause declares, that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test or affirmation. It had a higher object–to cut off forever every pretense of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the Constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source marked out in the history of other ages and countries, and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its strategems to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind, and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of the civil power to exterminate those who doubted its dogmas or resisted its infallibility. The Catholic and the Protestant had alternately waged the most ferocious and unrelenting warfare on each other; and Protestantism itself, at the very moment that it was proclaiming the right of private judgment, prescribed boundaries to that right, beyond which if anyone dared to pass he must seal his rashness with the blood of martyrdom [See 4 Black. Comm. 44, 53, and ante vol. i, §53]. The history of the parent country [Britain], too, could not fail to instruct them in the uses and abuses of religious tests. They were found the pains and penalties of non-conformity written in no 590 | 591 equivocal language, and enforced with a stern and vindictive jealousy. One hardly knows to repress the sentiments of strong indignation in reading the cool vindication of the laws of England on this subject (now happily for the most part abolished by recent enactments) by Mr. Justice Blackstone, a man in many respects distinguished for habitual moderation and a deep sense of justice. “The second species,” says he, “of non-conformists are those who offend through a mistaken or perverse zeal. Such were esteemed by our laws, enacted since the time of the reformation, to be papists and Protestant dissenters, both of which were supposed to be equally schismatics in not communicating with the national church, with this difference, that the papists divided from it upon material though erroneous reasons, but many of the dissenters upon matters of indifference, or, in other words, upon no reason at all. Yet certainly our ancestors were mistaken in their plans of compulsion and intolerance. The sin of schism, as such, is by no means the object of temporal coercion and punishment. If, through weakness of intellect, through misdirected piety, through perverseness and acerbity of temper, or (which is often the case) through a prospect of secular advantage in herding with a party, men quarrel with the ecclesiastical establishment, the civil magistrate has nothing to do with it, unless their tenets and practice are such as threaten ruin or disturbance to the State. He is bound, indeed, to protect the established church, and if this can be better effected by admitting none but its genuine members to offices of trust and emolument, he is certainly at liberty so to do, the disposal of offices being matter of favor and discretion. But this point being once secured, all persecution for diversity of opinions, however ridiculous or absurd they may be, is contrary to every principle of sound policy and civil freedom. The names and subordination of the clergy, the posture of devotion, the materials and color of the minister’s garment, the joining in a known or an unknown form of prayer, and other matters of the same kind, must be left to the option of every man’s private judgment” [4 Black. Comm. 52, 53].

(§1848) And again: “As to papists, what has been said of the Protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also 591 | 592 extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession, their worship of relics and images, nay, even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects” [4 Black. Comm. 54, 55].

(§1849) Of the English laws respecting papists, Montesquieu observes that they are so rigorous, though professedly of the sanguinary kind, that they do all the hurt that can possibly be done in cold blood. To this just rebuke (after citing it and admitting its truth) Mr. Justice Blackstone has no better reply to make than that these laws are seldom exerted to their utmost rigor; and, indeed, if they were, it would be very difficult to excuse them [4 Black. Comm. 57]. The meanest apologist of the worst enormities of a Roman emperor could not have shadowed out a defense more servile or more unworthy of the dignity and spirit of a freeman. With one quotation more from the same authority, exemplifying the nature and objects of the English test laws, this subject may be dismissed. “In order the better to secure the established church against perils from non-conformists of all denominations, infidels, Turks [Muslims], Jews, heretics, papists, and sectaries, there are, however, two bulwarks erected, called the Corporation and Test Acts–by the former of which no person can be legally elected to any office relating to the government of any city or corporation unless within a twelve-month before he has received the sacrament of the Lord’s super according to the rites of the church of England; and he is also enjoined to take the oaths of all allegiance and supremacy at the same time that he takes the oath of office, or in default of either of those requisites, such election shall be void. The other, called the Test Act, directs all officers, civil and military, to take the oaths, and make the declaration against transubstantiation in any of the king’s courts at Westminster, or at the quarter-sessions, within six calendar months after their admission, and also within the same time to receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, according to the usage of the church of England, in some public church immediately after divine service and sermon; and to deliver into a court a certificate thereof signed by the minister and church-warden, 592 | 593 and also to prove the same by two credible witnesses, upon forfeiture of 500l. and disability to hold the said office. And of much the same nature with these is the statute 7 Jac. I. c. 2, which permits no persons to be naturalized or restored in blood but such as undergo a like test; which test, having been removed in 1753 in favor of the Jews, was the next session of parliament restored against with some precipitation” [See also 2 Kent’s Comm. Lect. 24 (2d edit.), p. 35, 36; Rawle on the Constitution, ch. 10, p. 121; 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 296; 2 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. note (G.), p. 3]. It is easy to foresee that without some prohibition of religious tests, a successful sect in our country might, by once possessing power, pass test-laws which would secure to themselves a monopoly of all the offices of trust and profit under the national government [see ante, §621].

(Book 3, Ch. 44, §§1869-1879) (pgs. 602-609)

(§1869) Let us now enter upon the consideration of the amendments, which, it will be found, principally regard subjects properly belonging to a bill of rights.

(§1870) The first is, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, of prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition government for a redress of grievances.”

(§1871) And first, the prohibition of any establishment of religion, and the freedom of religious opinion and worship.

How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government in matters of religion have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those who were the warmest advocates of free governments as those who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character [See Grotius, B. 2, ch. 20, §44 to 51; Vattel, , B. 1, ch. 12, §125, 126; Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, B. 5, §1 to 10; Bynkershoek, 2 P. J. Lib. 2, ch. 18; Woodeson’s Elem. Lect. 3, p. 49; Burlamaqui, pt. 3, ch. 3, p. 171, and Montesq. B. 24, ch. 1 to ch. 8, ch. 14 to ch. 16, B. 25, ch. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12.]. Indeed, 602 | 603 the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any person who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well-being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providences of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues—these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community [See Burlamaqui, pt. 3, ch. 3, p. 171, etc.; 4 Black. Comm. 43]. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those who believe in the truth of Christianity as a divine revelation to doubt that it is the especial duty of government to foster and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one’s conscience.

(§1872) The real difficulty lies in ascertaining the limits to which government may rightfully go in fostering and encouraging religion. Three cases may easily be supposed: one, where a government affords aid to a particular religion, leaving all persons free to adopt any other; another, where it creates an ecclesiastical establishment for the propagation of the doctrines of a particular sect of that religion, leaving a like freedom to all others; and a third, where it creates such an establishment, and excludes all persons not belonging to it, either wholly or in part, from any participation in the public honors, trusts, emoluments, privileges, and immunities of the state. For instance, a government may simply declare that the Christian religion shall be the religion of the state, and shall be aided and encouraged in all the varieties of sects belonging to it; or it may declare that the Catholic or Protestant religion shall be the religion of the state, leaving every man to the free enjoyment of his own religious opinions; or it may establish the doctrines of a particular sect, as of Episcopalians, as the religion of the state, with a like freedom; or it may 603 | 604 establish the doctrines of a particular sect as exclusively the religion of the state, tolerating others to a limited extent, or excluding all not belonging to it from all public honors, trust, emoluments, privileges, and immunities.

(§1873) Now, there will probably be found few persons in this or any other Christian country who would deliberately contend that it was unreasonable or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally as a matter of sound policy as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, if, indeed, that State be an exception, did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain in some form the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the States down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion that it was against the principles of public law or republican liberty. Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion as the great basis on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the gospel is incompatible with the despotic age with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty. He has gone even further, and affirmed that the Protestant religion is far more congenial with the true spirit of political freedom than the Catholic. “When,” says he, “the Christian religion, two centuries ago, became unhappily divided into Catholic and Protestant, the people of the north embraced the Protestant, and those of the south still adhered to the Catholic. The reason is plain. The people of the north have, and will ever have, a spirit of liberty and independence which the people of the south have not. And, therefore, a religion which has no visible head is more agreeable to the independency of climate than that which has one” [Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws (Book 24, Ch. 5)]. Without stopping to inquire whether this remark be well founded, it is certainly true that the parent country has acted upon it with a 604 | 605 severe and vigilant zeal; and in most of the colonies the same rigid jealousy has been maintained almost down to our own times. Massachusetts, while she has promulgated in her Bill of Rights the importance and necessity of the public support of religion and the worship of God, has authorized the legislature to require it only for Protestantism. The language of that bill of rights is remarkable for its pointed affirmation of the duty of government to support Christianity and the reason for it. “As,” says the third article, “the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through the community but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality; therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall from time to time authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, etc. to make suitable provision at their own expense for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.” Afterwards there follow provisions, prohibiting any superiority of one sect over another, and securing to all citizens the free exercise of religion.

(§1874) Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration, the general if not universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

(§1875) It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent where the public worship of God and the support of religion constitute no part of the policy of duty of the state in any assignable shape. The future experience of Christendom, and chief of the American 605 | 606 States, must settle this problem as yet new in the history of the world, abundant as it has been in experiments in the theory of government.

(§1876) But the duty of supporting religion, and especially the Christian religion, is very different from the right to force the consciences of other men or to punish them for worshipping God in the manner which they believe their accountability to him requires. It has been truly said that “religion, or the duty we owe to our Creature, and the manner of discharging it, can be dictated only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence” [Virginia Bill of Rights, 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 296; 2 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. note G, p. 10, 11]. Mr. Locke himself, who did not doubt the right of government to interfere in matters of religion, and especially to encourage Christianity, at the same time has expressed his opinion of the right of private judgment and liberty of conscience in a manner becoming his character as a sincere friend of civil and religious liberty. “No man or society of men,” says he, “have any authority to impose their opinions or interpretations on any other, the meanest Christian; since, in matters of religion, every man must know, and believe, and give an account for himself” [Lord King’s Life of Locke, pg. 373]. The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God, and cannot be encroached upon by human authority without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural as well as revealed religion.

(§1877) The real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism [Islam], or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age [2 Lloyd’s Debates, 195]. The history of the parent country had afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions on this head [Black. Comm. 41 to 59]; and even New England, the land of the persecuted Puritans, as well as other colonies, where the Church of 606 | 607 England had maintained its superiority, would furnish out a chapter as full of the darkest bigotry and intolerance as any which could be found to disgrace the pages of foreign annals [Ante, vol. i, §53, 72, 74]. Apostasy, heresy, and non-conformity, had been standard crimes for public appeals, to kindle the flames of persecution, and apologize for the most atrocious triumphs over innocence and virtue [See 4 Black. Comm. 43 to 59].

(§1878) Mr. Justice Blackstone, after having spoken with a manly freedom of the abuses in the Romish church respecting heresy, and that Christianity had been deformed by the demon of persecution upon the continent, and that the island of Great Britain had not been entirely free from the scourge, defends the final enactments against non-conformity in England, in the following set phrases, to which, without any material change, might be justly applied his own sarcastic remarks upon the conduct of the Roman ecclesiastics in punishing heresy. “For non-conformity to the worship of the church” (says he), “there is much more to be pleaded than for the former (that is, reviling the ordinances of the church), being a matter of private conscience, to the scruples of which our present laws have shown a very just and Christian indulgence. For undoubtedly all persecution and oppression of weak consciences, on the score of religious persuasions, are highly unjustifiable upon every principle of natural reason, civil liberty, or sound religion. But care must be taken not to carry this indulgence into such extremes as many endanger the national church. There is always a difference to be made between toleration and 607 | 608 establishment.” Let it be remembered, that at the very moment when the learned commentator was penning these cold remarks, the laws of England merely tolerated Protestant dissenters in their public worship upon certain conditions, at once irritating and degrading; that the test and corporation acts excluded them from public and corporate offices, both of trust and profit; that the learned commentator avows that the object of the test and corporation acts was to exclude them from office, in common with Turks, Jews, heretics, papists, and other sectaries; that to deny the Trinity, however conscientiously disbelieved, was a public offense, punishable by fine and imprisonment; and that, in the rear of all these disabilities and grievances, came to the long list of acts against papists, by which they were reduced to a state of political and religious slavery, and cut off from some of the dearest privileges of mankind.

(§1879) It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different States equally proclaimed the policy as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the States, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians, in others, congregationalists; in others, Quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible that there should not arise perpetual strife and jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendency, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have 608 | 609 seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the State constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils without any inquisition into their faith or mode of worship.